# Afghanistan: Why we should be there (or not), how to conduct the mission (or not) & when to leave



## ruxted (7 Sep 2006)

Please post all responses to The Afghanistan Debate here.


----------



## McG (7 Sep 2006)

That should be required reading for all Canadians.


----------



## patrick666 (7 Sep 2006)

Very clearly stated. Anyone inquiring, or a bit confused, about our presence in Afghanistan or stance against terrorism should read this article.


----------



## teltech (7 Sep 2006)

So when will this be forwarded to the PMO?


----------



## Weinie (7 Sep 2006)

And Jack Layton


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2006)

Teltech said:
			
		

> So when will this be forwarded to the PMO?



Here is what I sent at about 1845 on 7 Sep 06 to pm@pm.gc.ca 

----------

Dear Prime Minister;

I wish to add to the advice you are receiving re: the Afghanistan mission.

...

My views are expressed fully and completely by the most recent Army.ca editorial at: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49909.0.html 

I will be grateful and you will be well served if one of your staff actually reads it.

Edward Campbell
Ottawa


----------



## Weinie (7 Sep 2006)

Well done Edward


----------



## gnplummer421 (7 Sep 2006)

Excellent reading, well done! 

Gnplummer


----------



## Sig_Des (7 Sep 2006)

Once again, an excellent editorial.

Require reading, Jack Layton


----------



## manhole (8 Sep 2006)

excellent - as usual.   Thank you!


----------



## Lockness (8 Sep 2006)

I was hoping for more discussion on this topic, so I will add mine.  Feel free to lob shots or add to the ideas you see fit.

An added element to the boat analogy are the waves that are breaking over the sides of the boat by including the waves of reinforcements and supply from the Arabic jihadists, Chechnyan merceneries, sympathetic Pashtun tribesmen in Pakistan and others, all seemingly coordinated out of the newly created unofficially named state of "Talibstan."  Pushing the analogy further, does NATO/ANA need to build a "breakwater" along the border to prevent the waves from swamping the boat while the military is bailing out the internal fighters and the Provincial Reconstruction Teams are patching the holes.

Given the reluctance of many NATO members to live up to their commitments in Afghanistan following 9/11/01, the West seems to champion the minimalistic approach to solving problems.  For example, in providing the minimum number of "bailers" to keep up with in inflow of water without making much of an impact on the water level despite their best and heroic efforts all the while being criticized at home and abroad by their bailing method.

Was it not then-Col. Dwight Eisenhower who wrote his brother Milton, "Hitler should beware the fury of an aroused democracy."
Well apparently, the horrors of 9/11 certainly aroused our democracy for a little while, but it seems to have fallen asleep again as Canada and the West is pondering its commitments and becoming disconnected with what the Afghanistan mission is all about.  

As far as protecting our national interests...

Afghanistan is only one field of battle of this whole so-called fundamental Islamic clash with Western Society.  The Afghanistan mission is an important battle to win because if the West can drag Afghanistan out of the bombed out shell it is to become a stable, secure, and internationally functioning society it will truly demonstrate that the Western Society is not weak and morally corrupt as many on the fundamental Islamic side are preaching.  If Canada pulls out and undermines the UN and NATO mission is will be a victory for the fundamental Islamicists thereby demonstrating their successful strategy and rally more support for the next battleground.

Argueably Canada has demonstrated a high moral standard through its past and current foreign policies, multiculturalism, and tolerance.  If Canada unilaterly leaves our NATO allies to fight on, it will no doubt have a serious impact on foreign relations and influence.  By staying, Canada can assume a leadership role in tempering the more radical policies of the West.

Strategically, our best weapon against fundamental Islamic radicals are moderate Islamics who have experienced the advantages and freedoms the West has to offer and are willing to help lead reforms and modernization in the Islamic world.  Destroying the jihadists on the battlefield although tactically important and garners much of the media's attention is really a distraction in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## McG (8 Sep 2006)

Here is another good piece with a similar view: http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex_060907.html


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Sep 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> Here is another good piece with a similar view: http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex_060907.html



I have tried to stay out of this.

*I think * Jack Layton and Bill Graham were likely given the courtesy of a comprehensive, full and fair briefing prior to the commencement of Medusa.  It would have been plain and obvious to even the simplest of fools that Medusa was destined to huge, violent  and likely very protracted. He has not publicly broken his oath of secrecy as to what he was told, but this has definitely caused him to do a total reversal and has, IMO, sided with the TB, whom he has now come to view as a peasant army fighting for their land.

He has, I fear, spilled the beans internally with his closest advisors, some of whom are defintely sympathetic to the Islamic insurgency,  and with that the inner circle of knowledge and ideological based resentment against the war grows.


----------



## Cadarn (9 Sep 2006)

All of the editorials I have read on army.ca should be required reading across Canada, but this has been the best by far.  This editorial breaks down the situation for the average, situationally-ignorant Canadians (and there are far too many of them).  Now we just have to find a way to get Mr. Harper to follow the advice and educate those who don't support the campaign in Afghanistan.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Sep 2006)

As an interesting supplement to the piece spotted by Edward Campbell earlier this year
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/43815/post-383154.html#msg383154

here's another account of how Canada got into K'Har, shared  in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

*The road to Kandahar*
At an afternoon meeting in Ottawa, a decision was made that would cost soldiers' lives, billions of taxpayers' dollars and, perhaps, Canada's reputation
Bill Schiller, Toronto Star, 9 Sept 06
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1157753409549&call_pageid=968332188774

It was the afternoon of March 21, 2005 — 48 hours before Prime Minister Paul Martin's first visit to the ranch with presidents George W. Bush and Vicente Fox in Waco, Texas.

Members of Martin's inner circle were filing into Room 323-S in Parliament's Centre Block, among them, freshly minted Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier, a charismatic and articulate man hand-picked by the Prime Minister himself.

Martin had called the meeting to discuss an array of foreign-policy issues.

But Hillier and planners in the defence department were fixed on one thing and one thing only: Afghanistan.

The meeting was the perfect opportunity to win confirmation for an idea they'd been planning for months, one that had the potential to transform Canada's military and embolden its reputation worldwide.

Defence Minister Bill Graham had already confirmed Canada would be sending soldiers in Afghanistan south to Kandahar, the dangerous stronghold and birthplace of the Taliban. There, Canadians would run a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT), a military formation combined with small components of diplomacy and development. The goal: to help reconstruct the country.

But Hillier wanted more than that — and he'd already won backing from the government's foreign affairs establishment.

Hillier wanted a battle group — at least 1,000 soldiers strong. 

Three hours later, Hillier had won the room. Canadian soldiers would move from the relative comfort of Kabul to the pointy edge of combat in the turbulent south.

A cabinet committee would later refine the details, then the full cabinet would approve it.

But that afternoon in the oval-shaped room will be remembered as the day the deal was done, the day that paved the Canadian road to Kandahar.

In time, the decision would cost the lives of Canadian soldiers, billions of taxpayers' dollars and, possibly, our well-earned reputation for peacekeeping built during the last 50 years.

The mission has stirred controversy — one that will endure, especially since Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government has extended that mission from 2007 until at least 2009.

How long it will actually take to stabilize Afghanistan, nobody knows. But former Canadian ambassador to Kabul Chris Alexander has been quoted as saying: "Five generations."

Some who were in the room that day (they numbered about a dozen), say there were no raised voices, no clashes and certainly no outrage.

Those assembled knew the assignment would be risky. They knew that Canadians would die. But several say that no one expected the kinds of casualties Canadian forces are now experiencing.

"It was clearly contemplated that peace was going to have to be made," says one. "And that making peace was going to lead to the potential of losing lives. But I don't think it was contemplated on this scale ... people didn't expect this many to be coming home in coffins."

Hillier himself laments the death of every soldier, and stresses that all measures are taken to diminish risk. But neither will he deny the risky reality of soldiering.

"We are soldiers. This is our profession. This is who we are and what we do."

He also argues that the battle group he argued for, and won, was absolutely essential to the mission. There can be no aid and no redevelopment without security, he says.

"We knew the Afghan army was still developing. The Afghan police are even further behind. So, we were going to have to ... provide that security and stability," he says during an interview this week.

But the loss of lives was not the only issue to be considered in the decision-making process.

A number of people in the process were uncomfortable with the fact that to go south to Kandahar, Canada was going to have to step outside of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), and once again sign up with the American-led Operation Enduring Freedom. (OEF).

Jonathan Fried, Paul Martin's then-foreign policy adviser, told others he had no problem with that. It was not precedent-setting. We had been there before — in the days following 9/11, Fried said. It was not a big shift.

But others had concerns. ISAF was truly multilateral, led by an international organization. Its mandate was to assist the Afghan government. It had somewhat more restrained rules of engagement.

By contrast, Operation Enduring Freedom was an American-led, counter-terrorism mission, aimed at rooting out and killing Taliban. Other nations assisted it, but it was Washington-run and directed by an administration mainly known for its muscle. And while the operation had been approved by a UN mandate, that mandate was issued on the basis of self-defence — issued on Sept. 12, 2001.

But why couldn't Canada move into the south and remain under ISAF command, some wondered? Why did it have to come under the OEF umbrella?

A now-retired senior defence department official explained that ISAF was not yet ready to go into the volatile south. There were still "discussions" going on in Europe about whether or not to deploy in the southern region.

The Dutch were hesitant in the extreme. The British would debate the issue in Parliament. So would Canada — but only after the decision was already taken.

Following discussions with British and Dutch military officials, Canada decided to pave the way for the eventual deployment of their NATO partners and allow them time to prepare.

But Canada couldn't go there solo. It needed a larger alliance to plug into, an alliance that could provide air support and more guns, and be able to medevac out wounded soldiers and provide them with first-class medical care.

The Americans had all that in spades.

The prevailing attitude to emerge in the March meeting, however, was that "the world had changed," and Canada "had to change with it."

NATO generals were watching, wondering whether Canada was going to keep a commitment made by former defence minister John McCallum at a NATO meeting in December 2003. Was Canada going to live up to it? Would Canada provide a PRT somewhere in Afghanistan?

"There was a feeling that this was the price of being a G-8 country," recalls Scott Reid, formerly Martin's communications director. "It was a question of, you know, after having shown up all these years with a six-pack, whether we were finally going to tend bar."

And then, of course, there was the American angle.

"There was a fairly strong trail of orthodoxy," that ran through the foreign affairs bureaucracy, Reid says, "that was based on an evaluation of strategic interests in terms of our relationship with the United States. A lot of times policy was put to us based on, `This matters to this White House. And things that matter to this White House can't be taken lightly, because these guys take it personally ... So, we really have to evaluate the importance of making a decision that runs counter to this White House.'"

There were, already, decisions taken that had run counter to the Bush administration: Canada had refused to join the coalition of the willing in the war against Iraq; Canada had opted out of the Missile Defence plan. And now, Canada was not going to help the Americans in southern Afghanistan at a time when they were stretched thin in Iraq?

Former Canadian ambassador to Washington Michael Kergin remembers the post-Iraq period well. There was a definite chill there, he says.

"There was this sense that we had let the side down ... and then there was the sense that we could be more helpful, militarily, by taking on a role in Afghanistan ... we could make a contribution in a place like Kandahar."

It was, if not payback time, then pay-up time.

Kergin says that in the world of diplomacy, governments don't spell these things out.

"You don't really need to ... it's pretty obvious ... the Americans were stretched in Iraq."

"There was," says another official who played a role in the decision-making process and attended the meeting, "what you might call an inevitability about the decision."

No one would ever call Hillier "arrogant," but some say another prevailing view emerged in the room: that if you couldn't embrace the new and more dangerous world order you were just "naive."

As for Martin, he saw Afghanistan as an "obligation" from the Chrétien era, one he had to honour.

"But his real belief was that Afghanistan wasn't a natural fit for Canada," says a key adviser. "Fundamentally, (Martin) felt Canada was more suited to places like Haiti and Darfur, where we were within our natural skills — the hard, but also the soft skills in particular."

But Hillier, articulate as always, and speaking without notes, was compelling.

He had been selected by Martin as defence chief because of his transformational leadership. And Martin wanted to see the Canadian Forces transformed.

"There was no doubt after sitting with Gen. Hillier for 20 minutes that he was the man for the job," Reid recalls.

Before endorsing Hillier's battle-group plan, Martin wanted Hillier's assurance that if Canada was called upon to participate in a mission in Darfur, Haiti or — say several who were in the room — even the Middle East, that there would be sufficient Canadian troops available to respond.

Martin made it plain, says one, that he didn't want to be "patronized ... he didn't want any `Yes, Minister' business. He looked Hillier squarely in the eye and demanded his commitment."

He got it.

In return, days later, three different options for the battle group formation were brought back for consideration: small, medium and large.

"One was a kind of `saving-face' deployment that would at least allow us to say we did it," recalls one participant. "One was really big — and defence hoped they'd get that one."

What they got instead was a mid-size plan, the current deployment, but the defence department was much pleased.

"You cannot underestimate the desire of soldiers to prove themselves in combat," says Paul Heinbecker, a former foreign senior policy adviser under the Chrétien and Mulroney governments; nor of commanders to finally show their skill in managing real battlefields, he says.

That said, Heinbecker is wary of the Afghanistan mission.

"Why are we doing this?" he asks in a recent interview. "Do we have any prospects of success? Will we know when it's time to get out — other than the death toll going up?

"And even more important is the fact that this is identifying us with American foreign policy. And in this world, that's a dangerous proposition."

While pleasing the Bush White House might not have been the determining factor in the decision to send combat troops to Kandahar, "pleasing the Americans and earning our spurs" was definitely part of the equation, says Heinbecker, now director of the Laurier Centre for Global Relations in Waterloo.

Was that wise?

"The United States, for a whole series of reasons, from exceptionalism to neo-conism to hubris to ignorance about the world, is conducting itself in a way that is creating a lot of enemies. And I just don't see how our association with that helps," he says.

In fact, he stresses, "it's endangering Canada."

Former Liberal cabinet minister Lloyd Axworthy shares some of those concerns.

"War has its own momentum," he warns, worrying about just where combat in southern Afghanistan will take us. "The deeper you get into it, the more you tend to lose sight of your objectives."

Despite Canada's commitment to focus its efforts on reconstruction in southern Afghanistan, recent turbulence on the ground hasn't allowed much.

"There's virtually very little news about the wider political and diplomatic issues surrounding Afghanistan," Axworthy says. "It's all focused on the military."

Meanwhile, he doubts there's very much resemblance between what Hillier proposed in Room 323-S on March 21, 2005, and what's happening on the ground in Kandahar today.

"There's serious concern that the mandate has gone through mission creep, and that what was defined by Gen. Hillier to the Liberal government has substantially altered.

"I don't think it has ever been defined in clear terms that we have shifted the nature of the mission. We're still using the language that we're still there to build the peace, but the PRTs (the Provincial Reconstruction Teams) that were originally set up are virtually now combat teams.

"Is that what we signed on to do?"

Axworthy points to recent polls showing Canadians turning against the mission.

"There's an innate sense among the public," he says, "that this is not right."


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Sep 2006)

In time, the decision would cost the lives of Canadian soldiers, billions of taxpayers' dollars and, possibly,* our well-earned reputation for peacekeeping built during the last 50 years*.

What about our 4 Canadian Mechanised Brigade Group?  What about Operation PANDA?  What about the Standing Fleet in the North Atlantic?  What about 1st Canadian Air Division?  These formations (and more) were all about our NATO comittment to defending the Federal Republic of Germany, a nation raised from the ashes of a former enemy.  Heck, in 1989, 5th Brigade joined 4 Brigade in the 1st Canadian Division!  None of these were about "peace keeping", a fuzzy term at best, and certainly a tool that was all about keeping the Cold War just that: cold!

It's time to undo revisionist theories out there.


----------



## McG (9 Sep 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is what I sent at about 1845 on 7 Sep 06 to pm@pm.gc.ca


Let us know what you get back.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is what I sent at about 1845 on 7 Sep 06 to pm@pm.gc.ca
> 
> ----------
> 
> ...





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Let us know what you get back.




Here is what I got back at 09:52 yesterday, 8 Sep 06:



> Dear Mr. Campbell:
> 
> On behalf of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, I would like to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence regarding Canada's role in Afghanistan.  Please be assured that your comments have been carefully noted.
> 
> ...




I’m not sure a real person ever laid eyes on my E-mail, much less read the editorial, but one can only try, try and try again.

A few years ago parliament or, maybe, the PMO was experimenting with a computer aided correspondence management system which included an automated reply function which would ‘read’ incoming E-mails and generate _reasonable_ and timely responses – just like the one above.


----------



## navymich (9 Sep 2006)

One can only hope now that you have sent them the link to this thread, that they will continue to monitor the views and opinions of members on the site, not only through this discussion, but others as well.

(yes, I know, wake up, I'm dreaming...but hey, stranger things have happened )


----------



## Lockness (9 Sep 2006)

I just finished watching CNN Presents: "In the Footsteps of Bin Laden" (see link for program details and schedule.)

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/bin.laden/

Despite the bias an American news agency will have covering this topic, it does present a real chilling picture of what the West is up against just from the actual interviews from bin Laden, biographers, and journalists.

Following the program, flipping the channel to CTV newsnet to see coverage of the NDP convention in Quebec where they voted 90 percent to abandon the Afghanistan mission, I was ready to throw the remote through the TV.  Despite having the NDP's former defence critic and wife of a soldier involved in the mission supporting Canada to remain in Afghanistan, the delegates stood and cheered when the final vote results to pull out were in.  I just felt kinda sick inside.  What am I missing?  Are the NDP so enlightened that this decision makes sense?  It does not add up to my understanding of what is happening in the world around us.

Maybe its a good thing that this whole discussion of whether Canada should be involved in the Afghanistan mission is falling on the 5th Anniversary of 9/11 as maybe the coverage can rekindle the feelings and thoughts following that attack.


----------



## T.M. (10 Sep 2006)

I think that this article directly and clearly defines our role in Afghanistan. Good job!

From reading this article, as well as following the news for the past while, people should reevaluate their positions on the issue. 

We can see that the insurgency is fierce and determined and there are many more in Afghanistan who hold radical ideals but do not participate in the insurgency. As the foreign occupation continues and more insurgents are neutralized, there are always more to take their place. It will be quite near impossible to neutralize half the country in this way, so I think we need to take a slightly different approach to the mission. We are indeed fighting to defend the interests of the Afghani people, but what if those interests are contrary to what we envision? North America is the richest, most powerful region in the world and I think we need to use our marketing skills and a pro-democracy campaign to convince the population of Afghanistan that they have the power to invoke change. If we can give them examples of how the democratic system has benefitted us in many ways (financially, socially and influentially), we can then use that to our advantage to neutralize the insurgency in a much more peaceful way, rather than have such a large occupying force in their homeland and divert from 'fighting' to 'diplomatizing'.

That's my opinion. We're so smart and bright that we should use more brains than brawn to get the job done. We spend millions of dollars on our own political campaigns. If we do something similar in Afghanistan, maybe we'll see change faster than by what we have been doing so far.

T.M.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Sep 2006)

> That's my opinion. We're so smart and bright that we should use more brains than brawn to get the job done. We spend millions of dollars on our own political campaigns. If we do something similar in Afghanistan, maybe we'll see change faster than by what we have been doing so far.
> 
> T.M.



Ahhh, crap!  Why didn't _we_ think of this sooner?

Thanks, tips, but we have been helping the Afghan gov't (specifically) and it's people (more generally) for the past few years in exactly this.  It's just, well, these pesky Taliban types keeping shooting at us and blowing up things that we build, so we thought, just for a lark, that this fall, we would maybe get rid of a few of them, so that we can get back to being "oh so nice Canadians" again.  I hope that you can be patient with us?   :

Look, TM, sorry for the sarcasm, but your post comes off as a bit holier than thou on a board populated with people who are personally familiar with the problems in Afghanistan.  Give us some credit, hmmm?

Welcome to Army.ca.  Please feel free to fill out you profile, if you feel comfortable doing so.


----------



## Boxkicker (10 Sep 2006)

Lets face it there is no debate to be had, This mission has been started by Paul Martin and continued as it should. I have personally emailed Jack Lyton and said if he wishes to support the troops, that he show some reality. Otherwise I just offered him a nice cup of SHUT the F**K UP. To bad he will never see it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2006)

Furthet to this, just a few posts away:



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> As an interesting supplement to the piece spotted by Edward Campbell earlier this year
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/43815/post-383154.html#msg383154
> 
> here's another account of how Canada got into K'Har, shared  in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409
> ...



An interesting bit of speculation, really, from Norman Spector in today’s (11 Sep 06) _Globe and Mail_, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060911.BCSPECTOR11/TPStory?cid=al_gam_globeedge 


> Tracing the roots of Canada's role in Afghanistan
> 
> *NORMAN SPECTOR*
> 
> ...



I have a few quibbles:

•	Although 9/11 was not an attack on Canada, _per se_, Osama bin Laden did designate Canada as one of the target countries.  In effect he declared war on us.  That rather than Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is why we are, indeed, at war;

•	Spector, like most Canadians I fear, has forgotten that there were two deployments:

1.	The *honourable* one in 2002 – decided because only the most base would deny help to our good friends and neighbours when they went to root out the den of snakes who had attacked them, and

2.	The _*sneak out of Iraq*_ deployment to ISAF in Kabul when, later, _morphed_ into the current mission in Kandahar.  Spector, quoting Sheila Copps, is quite correct when he says that going to Kabul was aimed _” to stave off any request from the U.S. that we participate in the Iraq war.”_  It was an act of supreme cynicism; and

•	Mr. Martin could have opted for a ‘safe’ PRT in the North if, big, Big *IF* he had the capacity to make a decision.  They didn’t call him _Mr. Dithers_ for nothing.  By the time he had made up his mind all the nice, safe provinces were gone – to more politically nimble Europeans.


----------



## McG (11 Sep 2006)

Ruxted Editor said:
			
		

> Here is what the Ruxted Group suggests Mr. Harper, as Head of Government should say:


. . . and here is what he said





> *Text of Prime Minister Harper's 9/11, fifth-anniversary speech*
> 
> Good evening. Today is the fifth anniversary of the terrible events of Sept. 11, 2001.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, it seems more may still be required.





> Fighting terrorism requires sacrifice: Harper
> Updated Mon. Sep. 11 2006 7:47 PM ET
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


Hopefully, the television networks are mandated to carry the next speech (and to carry it live).  Too much of relevance was edited out when I finally saw it.


----------



## PigPen (12 Sep 2006)

What is Canada's Real Role In Afghanistan?
Posted: 09/12
From: Mathaba

On Canadian Television last week, the mainstream media showed our soldiers laying siege to a village in southern Afghanistan. They should be in Darfur where they could perhaps do something to stop a bloody genocide and do some good for a change. 

By Mike Hoover

On Canadian television last week, the mainstream media showed our soldiers laying siege to a village in southern Afghanistan. They proudly showed views of American jets bombing and strafing this village. If one looked carefully the hills were barren and dry -- no vegetation to be seen anywhere. Then the television panned over to another province and poppy fields - lush and green as far as the eye could see. The only movement were laconic farm workers slitting the poppy bulbs in anticipation of this years opium harvest.

What's wrong with this picture? The way I see it is our Canadian war of genocide directed at an entirely different tribe and ethnic group than the ones participating in the opium business. We used to be such a peace-loving nation but now our leaders are following George W. Bush and his shadenfreudian policies. 

When the reporter takes the time to interview a Canadian soldier, he's told matter of factly that the soldier "believes in his mission". As I understood it, a soldier's mission is to obey orders or face the consequences. The soldier never really gets around to stating what that mission is, in fact, all we hear is the same neocon prattle that the mainstream cheerleading media is foisting on us, ad infinitum. 

I would like to personally congratulate Jack Layton, a leader of one of our major political parties for coming out strongly in favour of putting and end to this madness. 

I can understand the need for Canadian soldiers to bloody the battalion in order to create heros and give out medals. But not in their present capacity. They should be in Darfur where they could perhaps do something to stop a bloody genocide and do some good for a change. Afghanistan is in serious trouble, it needs help in many ways, body counts seem to be all this presant mission is providing.


----------



## Sig_Des (12 Sep 2006)

> I would like to personally congratulate Jack Layton, a leader of one of our major political parties for coming out strongly in favour of putting and end to this madness.



Well looky....it's a Taliban Jack lackey. Tripe.

Do you have a link to this?


----------



## PigPen (12 Sep 2006)

http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=542932

one more pot smoking freak


----------



## Dognuts (12 Sep 2006)

Wow Pigpen, your grasp of the situation in Afghanistan is truly staggering.


----------



## x-grunt (12 Sep 2006)

From Global Security:

Al Mathaba
Anti-Imperialism Center (AIC)
Al Mathaba (meaning center) is the Libyan center for anti-imperialist propaganda which has funded third world guerilla groups. The Anti-Imperialism Center (AIC) - *also known as Mathaba* - is used by the Libyan Government to support terrorist networks and thus plays an important role in Qadhafi's terrorism strategy. 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/libya/mathaba.htm

Seems like PigPen may be working - perhaps innocently - on behalf of the enemy.


_(Edit to correct a misspelled word)_


----------



## PigPen (12 Sep 2006)

Thanks for that link, very interesting.


----------



## x-grunt (12 Sep 2006)

Your welcome. Web sources with extreme right or left views always make me suspicious. Information, or misinformation, can be a weapon too, and the web is a cheap delivery system.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Sep 2006)

Things might have been a tad less confusing, pigpen, if you had used a couple of Army.ca _conventions_ like the quote function [ quote ] and [ /quote ] (no spaces) to start and end the al Mathaba bit, plus a link to the site from which you extracted it, plus a brief introductory or concluding sentence indicating that you do, indeed, think this is the work of _"one more pot smoking freak"_.

You would still have been called for confusing an enemy propaganda statement with fairly typical NDP _'thinking'_, but people would not have started to believe that you, maybe unwittingly, are part of the problem.


----------



## Sig_Des (12 Sep 2006)

Bravo Zulu, x-grunt and Edward, on tracking this source down properly.

I think any on line "news" site that brings you such articles as "It's time to end the last "tabboo" and hold Israel accountable for it's actions." ( http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=539266 ), "Nuke Iran, Blame the Jews" ( http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=540835 ), and "The shame of being an American" ( http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=540798&all_ids=1 ), should be taken with a very LARGE grain of salt.

As previously stated....utter tripe.


----------



## patrick666 (12 Sep 2006)

> They should be in Darfur where they could perhaps do something to stop a bloody genocide and do some good for a change. Afghanistan is in serious trouble, it needs help in many ways, body counts seem to be all this presant mission is providing.



What the hell do they think is going to happen if the Forces showed up in Darfur? They're going to meet us on the run away with flowers, showering us with hugs and kisses? What happens when soldiers die in Darfur? _"Oh, well then, let's get them out of there because it's a lost cause now!"_

I think the whole NDP party has ADD, can't focus on a mission, can't sit still long enough to understand it.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (12 Sep 2006)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn't the government of Darfur specifically say that they did not want any Western soldiers in the country? (they only wanted African soldiers)  Had Canada gone anyway, it would have been an invasion and an act of war.

Afghanistan on the other hand.. Canada is there at the specific request of the democratically elected government.   Here Wacko Jacko goes on in front of the camera about what we should be doing in Darfur, when in fact he is advocating for the illegal invasion and occupation of a country.   The irony..


----------



## Centurian1985 (12 Sep 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn't the government of Darfur specifically say that they did not want any Western soldiers in the country? (they only wanted African soldiers)  Had Canada gone anyway, it would have been an invasion and an act of war.
> Afghanistan on the other hand.. Canada is there at the specific request of the democratically elected government.   Here Wacko Jacko goes on in front of the camera about what we should be doing in Darfur, when in fact he is advocating for the illegal invasion and occupation of a country.   The irony..



Its one of the silly points about people who write these types of articles; they complain about how we 'invaded' Afghanistan, yet expect us to use the same tactics of 'invading' a country in order to stop the Darfur issue.  Their energy would be better used if they organized a letter-campaign to the Darfur government...  :


----------



## 54/102 CEF (12 Sep 2006)

So far I am not informed about the odds of turning this around - other than it will be a long time  changing a viewpoint of the state/village control ends at the camp gates. Refusal of insurgency suggests the local countries jumping past Religious Wars, Civil Wars, Depressions, and World Wars, to arrive at something like Great Britain. To me - I don't look for Deus Ex Machina - or as Len Deighton called it "a conveniant device for ending things." Welcome back to containment.
I see a huge porous border problem similar to South East Asia 62-72 that was never solved. All the SOF and all the Kings Men (REF A) couldn't solve it - because the political will to draw an iron circle around the regions borders wasn't there. Where do we hear the bad guys are? They're probably not that far away from Afghanistan.
A concept for you - the state of Pakistan is not a state and therefore their assistance is very welcome but it may not be sustainable - "Pakistan is generally a weak state. We don't think of it that way -- it's been ruled by military, it has nuclear weapons. But that's a paradox. It's a country that has nuclear weapons and a very proficient military, and is capable of staging coups, but the writ of the government in Pakistan does not run in large areas of the country. The penetration of power in rural areas is very minimal. It has to rely on all kinds of intermediaries in order to exert power." -- ref B. This was written 4 years ago and we keep hearing the same stuff on our admittedly mainstream medias who have an axe to grind.
The Taliban Philosophy has a track record - as nasty as it may seem to us and we've been back in the area for 5 years? Who has momentum? REF C and its financial roots REF D that links back to Saudi Arabia that hasn't seen how to turn its oil wealth into a renewable economy (dated, but I've heard this same story from Max Boot on Conversations with History from the UCAL Berkely Site) REF E
If you've been reading Michael Vlahos - you'll recall that he prescribes kill anyone with a gun and no deer tag who ain't from these parts.
If you haven't read Michael Vlahos REF F- at least try this primer Ref G called "Everything I needed to know about fighting terrorism I learned from George F. Kennan."
And if you read none of the above - there's always REF H the SI Swimsuit issue!  
Refs
A The Kingsmen Helo Coy - 101 Airborne Div Vietnam http://www.amazon.ca/Lest-We-Forget-Aviation-Battalion/dp/0804119171 
B Pakistan is not a state - http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Nasr/nasr-con4.html
C Taliban Philosphic Roots http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2001/Deobandi_Islam.pdf#search=%22deobandi%20islam%22
D Taliban got its funding from a web of Mid East money http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/interviews/nasr.html
E Max Boot - author of Savage Wars of Peace accuses Saudi Arabia of playing a dangerous double game for several decades now http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Boot/boot-con6.html
F - Bio of Dr Mike Vlahos - wrote three pieces on dealing with Islamic terrorists - the ones you find in the bush - you kill - those are the dangerous ones. http://www.jhuapl.edu/POW/bios/vlahos.htm Read these - they are excellent.
G US National Intelligence Council Chairman, Robert Hutchings Speech on Why Anti Terror is another spinoff of the what we know as "Containment" http://www.dni.gov/nic/articles_x_+_911.htm
Dare I say? http://www.google.com/search?q=SI+SWIMSUIT


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Sep 2006)

Nice piece by Richard Gwyn; his Brit background shows:

Canadian mood growing harder on terrorism
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1158011409583&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795



> ...Peacekeeping belongs, sadly, to another age. In the Darfur region of Sudan, where at least 200,000 have been slaughtered, and an all-out genocide threatens, the government is refusing to allow in United Nations peacekeepers.
> 
> Aid is most worthy. But without security, it's an exercise in futility. The Taliban, who want people to be as miserable and as angry as possible, have deliberately targeted aid workers and projects...
> 
> ...



As to harder, Churchill on Overlord, May 1944:



> Gentlemen, I am hardening to this enterprise.


http://www.history.rochester.edu/mtv/overview.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Sep 2006)

As to Darfur, do those who want us out of Afstan want us also to invade Sudan?  Wouldn't we then also be war-mongering as Bush's poodle?

Sudan legislator sees conspiracy in UN move for Darfur mission
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/12/news/darfur.php



> A senior Sudanese lawmaker on Tuesday accused Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, of spearheading a conspiracy against the African country over a plan to deploy UN peacekeepers in the war-torn Darfur region.
> 
> The United States is leading the conspiracy [my emphasis--and it is true that the US is trying, along with the UK, to get something done while other countries are really not doing anything], which "began as a political campaign in the UN and is now taking the form of a military intervention," Ismail Haj Mussa, a senior member of the Sudanese Parliament, told Radio Omdurman, a state-run station.
> 
> The United Nations has been trying to persuade Sudan to allow the world body to take over an African Union peacekeeping force that has been unable to stop the violence in Darfur. But President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan has repeatedly rejected the proposal, saying that it would violahis ate the country's sovereignty. He has warned that his army would fight any UN forces sent to Darfur [my emphasis]...



Or maybe a little regime change might be in order--but is not that frowned upon too?

What a dilemma.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## boondocksaint (12 Sep 2006)

i dont think the word 'tripe' is used enough, very old school

and good links above, thanks for the info


----------



## Sig_Des (12 Sep 2006)

boondocksaint said:
			
		

> i dont think the word 'tripe' is used enough, very old school



It's true, and we've been seeing a LOT of it on the wires as of late.


----------



## patrick666 (13 Sep 2006)

CBC News Viewpoint | September 13, 2006 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_storring/20060913.html
also see: A Soldier's Life by Russell Storring - http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_storring/

_Russell Storring is a Sergeant with the Canadian Army, and has been a signals operator for the 15 years he has been in the military. He recently returned from his second tour of duty in Afghanistan, having served there previously in 2003, and with the UN in Rwanda in 1994. His columns give a first-person account from the field and the life of a soldier._

To date, the war on terror in Afghanistan has resulted in 386 coalition deaths, of which, 32 have been Canada's sons and daughters. This statistic tragically places Canada second only to the U.S. in overall casualties. 

In addition to those who have paid the ultimate price, 88 more Canadian soldiers have been wounded and will carry the scars of battle and death for the rest of their lives. 

This reality, tied with the experience of thousands of soldiers who have served in Afghanistan (many twice or more), has shaped our training. Most training is now centred on realistic scenarios and lessons learned from those who have already been there. For soldiers deploying to this theatre for their first tour, and possibly more so for veterans of Afghanistan, the old saying of "it won't happen to me" quite simply does not exist anymore. 

A few weeks ago as I read the morning news, my heart skipped a beat when I saw the name Cpl. Jesse Melnyck, but relaxed slightly when I found out that he was injured but listed in stable condition. Melnyck was one of my command post signallers and drivers on Roto 0 in Afghanistan, and although we didn't go through any events together like he has just been through, he, like all the soldiers who have worked for me in the past, is still "one of my soldiers." 

I managed to visit him at an Ottawa hospital just after one of his reconstructive surgeries and found him in good spirits. Like a true soldier, he expressed his desire to go back and finish the job, despite losing an eye and having a scar from his forehead to his temple. Even after what he has gone through, and the surgery he still has to go through, he told me he has no regrets and would do it all again if given the chance. Even after coming so close to death, he was still pissed that he didn't get to stay and finish his part of the job. He, like so many others, has given more than what was expected. 

Later as Nathalie and I talked, we both realized I may be headed back to Afghanistan quite possibly as early as summer 2007. Although Nathalie and I don't always see things in the same light, she has taken the time to ask, and I have taken the time to explain why I (like so many other soldiers) am still willing to take the increased risk of a more robust deployment to Afghanistan. 

Despite the increase in insurgent activities since early 2006, Afghanistan is still moving forward on the road of democracy and reconstruction. Schools, hospitals, clinics and businesses remain open despite suicide bombings, fire bombings, and rocket attacks. Thousands of Afghanis have been killed in attempts by the Taliban to bring fear to the population, like they did when they were in power. Unfortunately the Taliban have failed to realize that the people of Afghanistan have spoken and voted for democracy and freedom, and the more the Taliban try to terrorize, the more the people will fight back and the more they will support the efforts of the fledgling government and the coalition. 

Not an occupation force 

Helping them fight back is the coalition. We are not an "occupation force" as some even here in Canada have stated, but backers of the legitimate Afghanistan government, which was voted in by a huge majority of Afghans who wanted their first democracy in 25 years. 

Under the Taliban, Afghanistan stepped back in time rather than forward. There were mass executions and beatings, and thousands of Afghans simply disappeared. In an effort to remove anything that did not fall under the Taliban's view of acceptable to Islam, museums, universities and places of culture such as the Bamiyan Buddha statues were destroyed. 

One of my interpreters on Roto 4 told me of a professor he knew who had ripped a number of valuable paintings to pieces, hid them to keep them from being burned. Once the Taliban were overthrown, the pieces were then put back together. Had the professor been caught, he would have been executed on the spot for defying a Taliban edict. 

The Taliban ruled by the gun, and controlled the population through fear and suffering. This is the only thing they know, and even now as they slowly lose their grip on Afghanistan and their former strongholds in the south, they continue to try to force the population to support them through suicide bombings, the burning and rocketing of schools, and attacks on Afghan and coalition forces. 

It is the action of a dying and desperate force. They are not yet ineffective, as witnessed by Canadian and coalition deaths, but are slowly dying as the Afghan people show they no longer want the Taliban — and they show this by simply carrying on. Something so simple, such as picking up the pieces, reopening bombed stores, going to school and to work, speaks a message the Taliban cannot stand, and that is this: They are no longer wanted. 

It won't be an easy struggle by any means, but it is something we must finish and see through to the end. If we abandon the Afghan people now, the Taliban will use their tactics of fear and suffering to gain a more powerful hold on Afghanistan and quite possibly create a more dangerous safe haven for terrorists than was witnessed in 2001, putting even more of us in danger in the global war on terror. 

Staying the course is the only option. It is what the Afghans need, it is what Canada and the world needs, and it is what our fallen need to ensure their sacrifice was not in vain.


----------



## AKA Sam (13 Sep 2006)

_Following is a letter that my husband wrote to the National Post.  They only posted the first two lines in the "Letters" Section of the September 11th edition. I apologize if I've posted it in the wrong area but I thought that you might like to read the entire letter._

Winston Churchill once said that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.  Good advice for Jack Layton and the NDP.  Obviously, Jack Layton is not much of a student of Canadian history.

Canadian soldiers, sailors and airmen have fought and died on foreign soil, to defend our way of life and freedoms for over a century.  From the Boer War, to the First World War, to World War II and Korea, our men and women in uniform have answered the call of duty.  The very right he has, to espouse his ill-conceived views was bought with the blood of much better people.  Canada’s place on the world stage was not claimed by running away at the first sign of blood.  On the contrary, historians have said that Canada’s true nationhood was recognized after our soldiers took Vimy Ridge.  The sacrifice of our young men, in the hundreds of thousands in both World Wars is a testament to the strength of character of previous generations.  Unlike our neighbours to the south, the Canadian Army was mostly a volunteer force.  Unlike today, we didn’t hear about the death of each soldier, five minutes after it happened, on the noon news.  That’s because they were being killed in greater numbers every day, than we have lost in four years in Afghanistan.

Are the people of Afghanistan any less worthy of our assistance than say, the people of Poland?  Was the Kaiser more of a direct threat to Canada than say, the Taliban?  As we approach the anniversary of the September 11th attacks in the USA, can anybody in Canada be naïve enough to believe that it couldn’t happen here?  Allowing countries like Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and others to descend into anarchy provides a breeding ground for Islamic militants.  These people have only one interest; the destruction of western civilization.  They don’t differentiate between Americans, Canadians, Brits, Spaniards, or even Russians.  They mean to destroy our way of life.  If we don’t tackle them over there, they will attack us here soon enough.  Conciliatory gestures won’t pacify a rabid dog.

The role of the Canadian soldier as a “peace keeper” is largely the invention of gutless politicians, for whom sacrifice is paying their own way back to their riding offices from Ottawa.  The men and women serving in today’s Canadian Forces are living examples of the values left to us by the “Greatest Generation”.  Ask a soldier which mission he would prefer to be on; Afghanistan with NATO or South Lebanon with the UN and it’s convoluted rules of engagement.  I’m willing to bet that the choice would be overwhelmingly in favour of the former.  Read Romeo Dallaire’s book “Witness to Evil” for a first hand account of our glorious peace keeping record and the joys of UN missions.

If Canada wants to be a full participant in world affairs, we have to be prepared to step up and contribute our share to preserve peace and stability, even when the going gets tough.  Al Qaeda and the Taliban are counting on our lack of intestinal fortitude.  They expect us to cut and run as the images of our soldiers coming home in coffins hits the news on television and the weaker kneed of us, like Jack Layton, start to squirm and squeal.

Our troops know and understand this.  They possess the moral certitude which comes with strength of character.  Each soldier who serves in Afghanistan is a volunteer.  None are forced to go.  All are proud to serve.  If you can’t support their mission, then shut up and stay out of the way.

Sincerely,
Greg and Sam Jxxxxxxx
Proud parents of a Canadian soldier
Brampton, ON


----------



## Gronk (13 Sep 2006)

Very well said.


----------



## boondocksaint (13 Sep 2006)

excellent stuff, gave me goose bumps


----------



## McG (13 Sep 2006)

Well, I've have sent link to this Ruxted article to all my non-military friends and I've heard back that many have sent it on to their friends.  I am guessing that at least a few other site members have sent out the link, and in this way we are doing a small bit to help educate people.  However, if the PM does not adddress the points (in the Ruxted words or in his own), the message will get out to enough Canadians.  The urgency/importance of this was raised in a post from another thread:



			
				Meridian said:
			
		

> As has been previously said on this board, what is frustrating is that the media can only report on one side of this issue, because both the Prime Minister and his government (including DND) have been useless in actually providing another side to the debate.
> 
> As a civilian and as someone continuing to desire a role in our military, I welcome democratic debate. It's healthy.  The problem is that When only one side gets all the airtime (because the other side isnt saying much of anything),  its no longer a debate.
> 
> ...


----------



## x-grunt (14 Sep 2006)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1158184237654&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795



> Expert advice on Afghanistan
> Sep. 14, 2006. 01:00 AM
> HAROON SIDDIQUI
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Sep 2006)

You only have to read a handful of articles by Haroon Siddiqui to spot the agenda he's pushing. You will also pick out the misinformation, skewing of detail and the outright fallacy of his imaginary facts. As soon as I see his name in the by-line, I give the article no more than a cursory glance till I pick up indication of the above, then I quit reading.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2006)

Ditto, recceguy.


----------



## Trinity (14 Sep 2006)

Expert Advice

I'd love to know what makes this person an expert!


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Sep 2006)

>With no easy answers available, I talked to two knowledgeable people, veteran diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi and Afghan Canadian filmmaker Nelofer Pazira.

With no easy answers available, he solicited the opinions of a sample set of people numbering two - that's the hallmark of a hardworking, serious researcher for sure.  If someone came to offer you "expert advice on Canada" based on a discussion with a foreign diplomat and a filmmaker born in Canada but no longer living there, what weight would you give his advice?  Coulda, shoulda, woulda, yadda.


----------



## Centurian1985 (14 Sep 2006)

Haroon Siddiqui.  He's the man we love to hate...


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Sep 2006)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

*NATO's Afghan Body Count, Published in Press, Raises Skepticism *  
Associated Press, 15 Sept 06
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003123095

NATO's estimate of Taliban killed this month has created skepticism and worry in Afghanistan, with local officials saying that either the militant force has grown bigger than imagined -- or too many innocent Afghans are being killed.

NATO says its forces, backed by the Afghan army, have killed more than 500 Taliban militants near Afghanistan's main southern city of Kandahar in Operation Medusa, a sweep launched Sept. 2.

The figures, if accurate, make it the deadliest battle since U.S. warplanes bombed the extremist militia, host of Osama bin Laden, out of power in late 2001.

"If they kill that many, the Taliban must have thousands of fighters on that front," said Mohammed Arbil, a former Northern Alliance commander. In the recent past, Taliban units have been described in terms of dozens or hundreds at most.

But NATO has stood by its battle assessments as solid, even conservative.

One official with the military command, called the International Security Assistance Force, said internally circulated estimates of militant dead were more than double the tally released to journalists.

"We'd rather have a lower figure that we can back up than a higher one that stretches your willingness to trust us," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

NATO says the high toll is due to its superior firepower, including fighter jets and artillery, compared to the Taliban militia's roadside bombs and assault rifles. It says it avoids civilian casualties by warning residents to evacuate.

The inability of journalists to reach the area has made it virtually impossible to check the figures.

Hundreds of families displaced from the war zone, in the Panjwayi district, are also in the dark, and don't even know if their homes are still standing.

The onslaught has dispelled any doubts that NATO, which recently took over in southern Afghanistan, is willing to use overwhelming military force. But Afghans, while eager for the Taliban uprising to end, have mixed feelings.

In the capital Kabul, there's disbelief that so many guerrillas could be killed and citizens escape unscathed. In Kandahar city, closer to the battle, there's dismay over the intensity of the fighting, and calls for peace talks.

"Who are these Taliban? They are Afghans," said Mira Jan, a displaced 42-year-old grape farmer from Panjwayi. "NATO and the government must convene a ulema (Muslim clerics') council with tribal elders and convince the Taliban to stop fighting."

By all measures, the Taliban have stepped up their attacks this year. NATO forces that took charge of security in the south last month expected hit-and-run guerrilla tactics, but instead have often faced well-organized militant forces that stand and fight.

Nowhere has that been more apparent that in Panjwayi, a rural district of dried-mud houses scattered among orchards where hundreds of Taliban militants had massed, posing a threat to Kandahar city, the former stronghold of the hard-line Islamic regime, just 15 miles away.

NATO launched Operation Medusa to wipe out the militants.

When NATO announced by the second day of the offensive that its artillery and airstrikes had killed more than 200 militants, skeptical journalists without access to the action -- following a government warning that anyone straying off the main road could be shot as suspected Taliban -- pressed for details: where were the bodies and how are they counted?

"Your know what you can see through a telescope? We have those kind of capabilities all over the battle field," said NATO spokesman Maj. Scott Lundy. "We are reliant on every soldier on the battlefield to feed up the information that they have, from what they have seen through weapons' sights and with other surveillance assets. It all gets thrown into the mix."

Lundy said such estimates are "imprecise," but stressed that NATO makes every effort to make them as accurate as possible and usually goes with a conservative number. "We would be quite happy to speak about military success without going into the detail, but it's what the media want," he said.

To date, NATO has reported at least 517 militants dead compared to 20 from its force, 14 of them in an accidental plane crash.

The Taliban has denied suffering such high casualties. Neither side has offered details about how many militants have been wounded.

According to an Associated Press count based on reports from U.S., NATO and Afghan officials, 2,800 people have died so far this year in violence nationwide, including militants and civilians -- about 1,300 more than the toll for all of 2005.

Andrew Krepinevich, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, said that given the circumstances in which the Taliban had massed in one place, the figures given by NATO were plausible and could well be an underestimation, because of the effort the Islamic militia makes to bury their dead quickly.

He also said that given NATO's aim to create secure zones, they had little incentive to inflate the death toll.

"I have no suspicion they are trying to widely inflate the casualty numbers. They are not trying to measure success that way anyway," Krepinevich said in a telephone interview.

"They would be trying to measure success in terms of the population feeling secure, is reconstruction proceeding, is commerce growing."

Insecurity has clearly prevented any progress on those counts. And the alliance's success in battle has induced little optimism among Afghans that NATO -- struggling to marshal enough forces for its mission -- is close to defeating the resurgent Taliban.

"All these bombardments leave behind a bad name for the international community for killing Afghans," said Taj Mohammed Wardak, a former Afghan interior minister. "It will only create more motivation for revenge."


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2006)

This article, by Christie Blatchford, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, is from today’s (15 Sep 06) _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060916.COBLATCH16/TPStory/TPComment/  


> We debate, with guns blazing
> *But is it informed debate? There is a serious lack of understanding about Canada's mission to Afghanistan*
> 
> CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD
> ...



As an initial aside I regard the CBC’s Carol Off as a polemicist, and I suspect, from reading between the lines of Blatchford’s article that she demonstrated that in Toronto – being more concerned with where O’Connor said something that what he actually said.

It seems clear enough to me that Stephen Harper and his circle of hacks and flacks need to read more – maybe, especially, the recent Army.ca editorial.  Blatchford is right: Canadian are confused and the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister of Canada are doing little to clear the air.

I have wondered elsewhere in these fora if Harper _et cie_ really have a coherent view on this mission.  I fear that, for the (some? many?) Conservatives, Afghanistan is nothing more than a political stick with which they can beat the Liberals.  *If* that’s the case then we, Canadians, are being ill served.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (17 Sep 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> NATO's estimate of Taliban killed this month has created skepticism and worry in Afghanistan, with local officials saying that either the militant force has grown bigger than imagined -- or too many innocent Afghans are being killed.



I wonder if there is any way to tell when one is a Taliban, or if one is a drug dealer?  There is so much focus on the Taliban, and the Al Qaeda connection that the drug industry gets forgotten in the static.  Drug dealers have virtually unlimited resources in money and arms.  In all likelyhood, there is some collaboration between the Taliban and the local drug cartels.  I also strikes me as very possible that the drug lords would arm and organize a bunch of hapless locals.  Give them a few hundred dollars, some heroin and say "go attack those guys.  We'll pay you $100 for every helmet you collect" or something to that effect.  Dude sees an opportunity to make a years salary after one successful attack, and has listened to the Taliban propaganda (they are weak, they will run, they have no heart, etc).  Thus creating a disposable mercenary force.  Not really Taliban, but still needing to be taken out when they come at you with guns-a-blazin'.  
So the Taliban numbers may have been accurate all along, but more guys are getting killed for being opportunist, pushing the numbers up.  
Just speculation.  Not being offered up as actual knowledge.


----------



## boondocksaint (17 Sep 2006)

good point zipperhead- atleast  1 of our Tic's was against druglord fighters, big numbers and well armed, and busted 15 million in black tar herion once they'd been wiped out

they are all in it together especially as zipperhead mentioned, when the opportunity rises to combine efforts


----------



## zipperhead_cop (17 Sep 2006)

boondocksaint said:
			
		

> good point zipperhead- atleast  1 of our Tic's was against druglord fighters, big numbers and well armed, and busted 15 million in black tar herion once they'd been wiped out
> 
> they are all in it together especially as zipperhead mentioned, when the opportunity rises to combine efforts



Nice grab.  At least you can feel good that if any of them got away, they probably got killed for losing that much product.  Win/win.   ^-^


----------



## big bad john (18 Sep 2006)

http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=2&nid=42797

GG Defends Canada's Mission in Afghanistan 
Josh Pringle 
Monday, September 18, 2006 

Governor General Michaelle Jean says withdrawing from Afghanistan would be "refusing to help a people in danger." 

Jean is defending Canada's role in Afghanistan. 

Jean told Canadian Press that given the recent spike in violence, it is important for Canadians to show solidarity with the Afghan people, adding "at this time, now, when it's difficult, we're seeing the human cost of our commitment." 

32 Canadians have died in Afghanistan since 2002. 25 Canadian soldiers have been killed this year. 

Jean says she never imagined that she would have to attend so many funerals for Canadian soldiers. 

But the Governor General says she sees no other way of ending the Taliban's violence in Afghanistan, "these confrontations in the Kandahar region are one thing, but we also know what the power of the Taliban was like."


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Sep 2006)

I am actually glad to hear that our head of state (or her representative here in Canada, I can never figure that one out) is coming out so strongly in this case.


----------



## GAP (18 Sep 2006)

It actually is her responsibility, but given her former affiliations and such, everybody was of the mind that she was a virtual princess and not at all supportive. It's nice to see, even if a little late.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Sep 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> It actually is her responsibility, but given her former affiliations and such, everybody was of the mind that she was a virtual princess and not at all supportive. It's nice to see, even if a little late.



HRH Elizabeth II is the Head  of State (as Queen of Canada), the GG is HRH's representative in Canada and our Commander in Chief, her public support is always apprieciated.

Gen Mackenzie weighed in with an interesting comment about the polls and selective use of questions:

http://talkcanada.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_talkcanada_archive.html#115863593505294469



> *Polling on Afghanistan *
> Ret'd General Lewis Mackenzie was interviewed on Canada AM this morning and he made a great point when asked about the polls showing weak support for the Afghanistan mission.
> 
> You can watch the interview here.
> ...



Once you ask the right questions, the issue comes into sharp focus.


----------



## McG (19 Sep 2006)

I'd be interested to know the same.  I'd also like to know the result of a poll question in which Canadians were asked if  humanitarian efforts should be abandon in Afghanistan.


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Sep 2006)

Afstan: The truth will out.

Letter today in the Edmonton Journal:
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/letters/story.html?id=01a819d8-eb52-41fd-ba54-51b409d2993b

'U.S. not in control

The Edmonton Journal
'Published: Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Re: "Fighting won't provide solution to morass in Afghanistan," Opinion, Sept. 17.

The column states that "the U.S. is still running the Afghan campaign." That is not accurate. Canadian troops are serving under NATO's International Security Assistance Force. The U.S. is not running ISAF.

ISAF's mission is mandated by the UN Security Council. On Sept. 12 the council voted unanimously to extend ISAF's mandate, and specifically called "upon member states to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to ISAF."

Mark Collins, Ottawa'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (20 Sep 2006)

It will be interesting to see how these to stories develop & contribute to the debate: 



> Harper to defend Afghanistan mission in first United Nations speech
> Beth Gorham, Canadian Press
> Published: Tuesday, September 19, 2006
> 
> ...


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=6eb9695b-cc74-416a-9b7f-401ed106d75b&k=73165

and





> Karzai hopes to convince Canadian politicians of need for Afghan mission
> Alexander Panetta, Canadian Press
> Published: Tuesday, September 19, 2006
> 
> ...


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=d72bd09b-c980-4892-9433-8467524abfdc&k=4394


----------



## big bad john (20 Sep 2006)

People continue to ask, some come here to this site for the answer.  We have had a few threads on this, now continuing on the vein.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0919/p07s02-wosc.htm

from the September 19, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0919/p07s02-wosc.html
In Kabul schools, fear of Taliban return 
Students learning English in co-ed schools that proliferated since 2001 view the US skeptically. 
By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor 

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN 
Glory and service to country seem to drive the students taking private English lessons in one of the many foreign language schools that have opened here since the Taliban fell. They aspire to be doctors, engineers, and journalists - to elevate themselves above the decrepitude and insecurity they see all around them.

"I want to be an astronaut!" announces 14-year-old Arsalan. So does his little brother. Their friend, Seeyar, is determined to be president.

"He's on the land," says Arsalan. "We'll go to the stars!"

But those youthful dreams - expressed boisterously by these boys and more shyly inside a classroom of a dozen male and female students in their late teens - give way to details of fear about a Taliban resurgence and heartfelt concern about the US intent regarding the Muslim world.

Tamana's family returned to Kabul from Pakistan after US-led forces toppled the Taliban in 2001. "When I came, everything was destroyed, and people were destroyed," recalls Tamana, who wants to become a television journalist. "People couldn't say their opinion. They were fighting their brothers."

A pervasive fear is that the string of Taliban suicide attacks, and fighting between NATO and US forces in south and east Afghanistan, is a prelude to the Islamist militia again regaining control.

This recently opened school - along with many other language and computer schools in the capital - would be closed; women would be forced again to wear burqas.

"My family has decided they should remain in Afghanistan for the time being, because we can get an education," says Espozhmai, her hands covered in traditional henna, who was secretly home-schooled by her mother during the Taliban era. "We will decide what to do, if the Taliban takes Kabul."

Afsoon's family is also staying. "We don't want to live like refugees again," she says of the 11 years her family lived in Isfahan, Iran.

"We decided to stay, because my mother said: 'Afghanistan needs people like us to rebuild. If we don't reconstruct it, who will?' " Afsoon recalls of the dinner table conversation.

"I want to fight, to save my country," vows Fareshda, whose gentle face and slipping headscarf belie her desire to take on the Taliban and their uncompromising rules. "My family is happy, because they are in their own country."

"Our problem is our people. They are uneducated. They all the time are used as a tool by someone else," says teacher Shayan. "The first time the Taliban took control of Afghanistan I stayed. But if they come again, I will leave Afghanistan. I can't stand a second time."

So what do these students say are Afghanistan's three greatest needs today?

"Security," says Fareshda.

"Solidarity," says Tamana, the aspiring journalist.

"Peace. We need peace," says Assiya, who wants to be a doctor.

"If the situation stays like this, I'm sure the Taliban will come," says Ahmad, a recently graduated pharmacist who claims the US is supporting the Taliban with cash, because otherwise they "could not fight against the 25 countries of NATO.

"If they come, they will put rules on people," he says, adding that the US should build a wall along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban draw much support. "If they come by force, what can people do?"

Indeed, the Taliban may already be trying to cause harm in Kabul, according to a letter sent recently by the Ministry of Interior to top Afghan education ministers, warning that the Taliban has imported writing pens with a special gas mechanism that will "render people unconscious and clean [erase] their memories."

The Taliban, the letter said, planned to specifically distribute the pens to private foreign language and computer schools where men and women learn side by side.

But the Taliban - and problems of electricity shortages, insecurity, and weak government - are not the only things weighing on these young minds. The class quickly turns into a session in which an American visitor is peppered with questions.

"Why do the Americans attack Islamic countries?" asks teacher Farid. A chorus erupts from the class as students demand an answer.

Shayan tries to explain the reason for Afghanistan: "They attacked to save us from the Taliban and Al Qaeda," he says.

"The US government, especially Bush, is against Islam. He attacks Muslim countries," says Tamana, the journalist-to-be. She dismisses the examples of US-led airstrikes against Bosnian Serbs in 1995, to save Muslims in Sarajevo, and bombing of Serbia in 1999 to relieve pressure on Kosovar Muslims, as "minority" cases.

"Why did the Americans attack Iraq?" asks Farid.

"Why do the Taliban do suicide bombs?" asks Wais, who works in a trendy clothes shop. "Do you think this time the Taliban will be democratic?" he asks sarcastically, prompting muted laughter. "If they come back, we'll have to escape again to Pakistan."

"Why didn't the Americans eliminate the Taliban?" asks Farid, shaking his head.

"We appreciate the role of the US in Afghanistan," says Shabana, a shy girl who hopes to become a doctor. "We want the US Army to be here for a long time. We need your help."

"Apparently they are here to help us reconstruct, to help us stand on our own feet. But we'll be happy if they fight the Taliban now and stop them," says Afsoon. "Unless civilians are harmed by their attacks. They should be very careful."


----------



## NavyShooter (20 Sep 2006)

Well,

My wife asked me why we're in Afghanistan the other day.

My explanation was a little complex I guess.

I look at it this way.  Canada is the one nation that has not yet been hit from Al Queda''s "big 6" hitlist.  

If the talliban was still in control of Afghanistan, and providing a locale of support for AQ, what is the likelyhood that we would have had a terrorism incident in Canada by now?  Seeing as the other 5 have been hit, I'd say probably pretty good (or bad?) 

If we examine the other terrorism attacks, from the London Bus attacks, WTC, Spain's Trains, etc, how many people are likely to die in one of these attacks on average?  Several hundred?

If our presence in Afghanistan aids significantly in preventing such an attack that would potentiall kill hundreds of innocents on our soil, then it is worthwhile.

I guess it's not really along the theme of the article posted above, but it's my perspective on why we're doing things.

NavyShooter


----------



## Nieghorn (20 Sep 2006)

I was just thinking this morning why it is that whenever one of our brave soldiers gets killed in Afghanistan, does the media and the people they interview ask why we're there.  I thought it was quite clear from when our troops moved into Kandahar that it was to root out the Taliban.  Several times it's been made quite clear to me from certain experts, the troops on the ground, and by my own reading that if they are not destroyed this failed state, with the potential to succeed, will go back to the oppressive regime it once was.  No human being deserves to live under conditions such that the Taliban maintained before 2001.  

I can't speak for our troops, but this looks like a noble cause worth fighting for.  Unfortunately for those on the extreme left, the Taliban  and al-Q don't seem to be the type of people who'll come to the table to discuss a peaceful end, understanding only 'diplomacy' by the gun and bomb.  I'm currently reading a book about modern military approaches to battling insurgencies, and two main elements seem to be the way of not only winning the battles, but also getting the local people on your side.  Unfortunately for safety's sake, this doesn't involve sitting around in bases and means patrolling far and wide, hitting insurgents where they live.  It also importantly means interacting with locals, helping them rebuild and establish infrastructure that will make their lives better.  It's really interesting to read how typical NGO work is being done by the military, but despite what the NDP thinks, this can only be done with a show of force.  This form of the old 'hearts and minds' strategy seems to be working from what I've read and not only are many people happy with our presence, those 'in the know' are willingly coming forward to help make the job of finding the 'bad guys' a lot easier.

For the sake of all concerned, I hope an end comes sooner than later, but I think our action in Afghanistan has a chance to really make a difference where history has seen similar cases in the past spiral into death and oppression of the innocent when the world ignored them.


----------



## Lockness (20 Sep 2006)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing"  ...
...  Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/20/opinion/20hafvenstein.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Op-Ed Contributor
Afghanistan’s Drug Habit 
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Single Page Save 

By JOEL HAFVENSTEIN
Published: September 20, 2006
London

Jeffrey Smith
AS if there hadn’t been enough bad news from Afghanistan of late, now the country’s drug dependency is back in the headlines. On Sept. 2, the head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reported that the shattered country is now producing 92 percent of the world’s supply of illegal opium, up from 87 percent in 2004. This deplorable new record will not be reversed by more belligerent counternarcotics measures. Instead, America, NATO and the Afghan government must reform a vital but neglected institution: the local police.

In 2004, for the first time in history, farmers in every province of Afghanistan chose to cultivate opium poppies. The American and Afghan governments promised a major poppy eradication campaign. Aid agencies scrambled to create an economic alternative for the thousands of Afghans who depended on poppy farming to survive. 

Thus in November 2004, I traveled to Lashkargah, the capital of Helmand Province, the opium heartland of Afghanistan, as the deputy leader of an “alternative livelihoods” project financed by the United States Agency for International Development. Our core team was made up of six Western aid workers, and we hired some 80 Afghan staff members. 

In the long-term plan, alternative livelihoods meant helping Afghan farmers export high-value crops like saffron and cumin. It meant restoring the orchards and vineyards that had once made Afghanistan a power in the raisin and almond markets. It meant providing credit to farmers who had relied on traffickers for affordable loans.

In the short run, however, with the first eradication tractors already plowing up poppy fields, we had no time for those approaches. Instead, we created public-works jobs. Like a New Deal agency, we handed out shovels to thousands of local Afghans and paid them $4 per day to repair canals and roads. We found plenty of work on Helmand’s grand but dilapidated irrigation system, a legacy of early cold-war American aid. By May 2005, we had paid out millions of dollars and had some 14,000 men on the payroll simultaneously. The program buoyed the provincial economy, and would have made a fine launching pad for long-term alternatives to poppy. 

Security was our Achilles’ heel. There was a new American military base by the graveyard on the edge of town, but the few score Iowa National Guard members there lacked the manpower and the local knowledge to protect us. We could not afford the professional security companies in Kabul, most run by brash veterans of Western militaries. Then, just before Christmas, some of our engineers were carjacked. We resorted to the only remaining source of protection: the provincial police.

We soon found that at their best, the Helmand police forces were half-organized militias with charismatic leadership and years of combat experience. At their worst, the policemen were bandits, pederasts and hashish addicts. Our local guard captain was one of the better ones, but he was still far from reliable. 

Once I asked him what he earned as a district police commander. “The governor paid us no salary,” he curtly replied. “The people gave us money. To thank us for solving their problems.” I was never sure if we were paying him enough to solve our problems.

When the attacks came, our security was useless. On May 18, five of our Afghan staff members were murdered in the field. The next morning, one of the funeral convoys was ambushed, leaving six more of our workers and their relatives dead. The police responded with indiscriminate arrests and bluster, but they lacked the investigative skills to catch the killers.

We heard rumors that the attackers were Taliban troops — and indeed, the attacks were harbingers of the Taliban resurgence that Helmand has seen in the last year. We also heard that the Taliban had been paid by local drug barons to attack our project. All we knew was that we were targets, and that we could not protect ourselves. Within days, we had stopped all our projects and most of the staff went home. 

more on link


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Sep 2006)

Harper to defend Afghanistan mission in first United Nations speech 

A typically misleading Canadian headline, with a subtle implication that the mission has to be defended to the UN itself when if fact the mission is UNSC-mandated.  A truer headling would have been:

"Harper to seek domestic support for Afghanistan mission with UN speech".

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Lockness (22 Sep 2006)

Support our troops - Bring em home! So the Taleban can once again take over Afghanistan.  See below for the Taleban's track record and make up your own mind on whether its right we should stay and help the international community or go.

Amnesty International - Afghanistan - Feb 28, 2001
Massacres in Yakaolang
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/afghanistan/document.do?id=D33D75136CB017EC80256A1C00664835
For several days Taleban forces massacred over 300 unarmed men and a number of civilian women and children. The victims were either summarily executed or deliberately killed.

Eyewitnesses told Amnesty International: "Some people in Kata Khana ran to the mosque for shelter thinking the Taleban would respect the sanctity of the mosque, but they were wrong!" They said they saw Taleban guards deliberately firing two rockets at the mosque where some 73 women, children and elderly men had taken shelter. The building collapsed on them but the Taleban guards would not allow anyone to go to their rescue for three days, by which time all those in the mosque had died except for two small children.

More on link

Amnesty International - Afghanistan - Feb 28, 1999
Detention and killing of political personalities
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/afghanistan/document.do?id=1794673D05436A638025690000693441
Up to 200 Afghan political personalities have been arrested in the past year apparently on account of their peaceful political activities and opposition to the continued armed conflict in the country. Those arrested include Afghan intellectuals, community leaders, former army officers or civil servants. The vast majority of the detainees are reportedly non-combatants arrested solely for their activities in support of peace and a broad based government in Afghanistan. Most of these detainees have reportedly been severely tortured. Over a dozen of them have been killed after their arrest. Some of the detainees have been released but as of February 1999, around 100 still remain in detention.

More on link

Amnesty International - Afghanistan Mar 31, 1998
Flagrant abuse of the right to life and dignity
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/afghanistan/document.do?id=B75FE8B21E581DC88025690000693223
In recent months, at least five men convicted of sodomy by Taleban Shari'a courts have been placed next to standing walls by Taleban officials and then buried under the rubble as the walls were toppled upon them. At least four alleged murderers have been executed in public by the family members of the murdered persons. At least five men have had their hands amputated on allegation of theft, and at least one man and one woman have been flogged by Taleban officials on allegation of adultery.

More on link

Amnesty International - Afghanistan Aug 31, 1997
Continuing atrocities against civilians
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/afghanistan/document.do?id=935B899FE372E31B802569000068A275
Amnesty International has recently received testimonies from the survivors of a massacre in the Afghan village of Qezelabad, near the northern city of Mazar-e Sharif. These testimonies reveal that about 70 civilians, including women and children were deliberately and arbitrarily killed on 14 September by armed Taleban guards as they were retreating from some of the positions they had captured in the area. All of the victims reportedly belonged to the Hazara minority which in recent years has frequently been targeted by the Taleban.

More on link


Amnesty International - Afghanistan May 31, 1997
Women in Afghanistan: The violations continue
http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/afghanistan/document.do?id=E0380F6A0A485DDA8025690000692F85
...
Taleban restrictions imposed on women deny them some of their most basic and fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom of association, freedom of expression and employment. Similar restrictions imposed by any other group would equally amount to a violation of these rights; 
Women in Taleban controlled areas of Afghanistan continue to be beaten by Taleban guards for defying orders about dress or for working outside their home; 
Women detained or otherwise physically resticted under Taleban codes solely by reason of their gender would be considered by AI to be prisoners of conscience.

More on Link


----------



## George Wallace (22 Sep 2006)

In case the "Loyal Opposition" needs justification for Troops in Afghanistan, this breaking news ought to open up their eyes (Especially Jack Layton):   (Posted according to the Fair Dealings Act.)

Afghan workers killed in ambush

Nineteen construction workers have been killed in southern Afghanistan when their bus was hit by a bomb and then fired on by insurgents, officials say. 
Three other workers were hurt in the attack in southern Kandahar province, the interior ministry said. 

Meanwhile police say they have killed 20 suspected Taleban in central Uruzgan province. One policeman also died. 

A spokesperson for the Taleban said that they had killed 14 policemen in the incident and denied losing any men.

More on the linked site.


----------



## probum non poenitet (22 Sep 2006)

Well, you see what you want to see, and hear what you want to hear ...

according to the NDP, President Karzai gave a "stern condemnation of the military operation" yesterday.

It's politics. Truth is secondary, you just need to twist the facts to score points, like a bad day in divorce court.

http://www.ndp.ca/page/4357

QUOTE from the NDP's website:

_Within minutes of finishing his speech to the United Nations defending the unbalanced military mission in Afghanistan, Prime Minister Harper was contradicted by none other than President Karzai of Afghanistan.

Harper says:

" ... approximately 20,000 troops from 37 countries — roughly 2,500 Canadians included — are contributing to military efforts to help stabilise Afghanistan and eliminate the remnants of the Taliban regime once and for all." 

—Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, 21 September 2006.

How Mr. Harper's take on things differs from that of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Karzai says:

"Bombings in Afghanistan are no solution to the Taliban. You do not destroy terrorism by bombing villages. You do not destroy terrorism by launching military operations in areas where only the symptoms have emerged." 

—Afghan President Hamid Karzai, speaking at the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, CBC Newsworld, 21 September 2006

Harper told the UN, that "the democratically elected government of Afghanistan — led by President Karzai — requested the assistance of the United Nations and its member states in the struggle against terror, intimidation, violence and oppression." *Given Karzai's stern condemnation of the military operation today*, it's clear that the highest levels of the Afghan government are less supportive of this unbalanced military mission than the Conservatives are letting on._


----------



## cplcaldwell (22 Sep 2006)

Okay....

Looks like it's time for another letter to ndp.ca.

Talk about over the top!!!

Juvat, Infidel-6, you're assessment was quite right, and it took what? Twenty minutes?

"In war the first casualty is Truth"


----------



## Yrys (22 Sep 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> and it took what? Twenty minutes?




Probably less, the page of the npd web site is yesterday...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2006)

The President of Afghanistan has the most eloquent answer to Jack Layton; he has ignored Taliban Jack's appeals for a meeting:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1158875419217&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News



> *Karzai snubs Layton request for meeting*
> Sep. 21, 2006. 06:50 PM
> ALEXANDER PANETTA
> CANADIAN PRESS
> ...


----------



## cplcaldwell (22 Sep 2006)

Yrys: Yes I noted the date after I posted. My bad

It seems then these wascally wabbits engaged in a pre-emptive strike. 

I love the logic. _"Let's cherry pick the quotes we want, post it, then the next day, when the party of the first part totally demolishes our position, we'll just leave the stale dated Reality Check up on our site, once again , steadfastly denying reality."_

Nice to see Taliban Jack has not evolved too much since his days on Tronna city council.....


----------



## GAP (22 Sep 2006)

Kinda gives you visions of a naughty puppy scratching at the Afghan mission door, whining  about wanting in....  ;D


----------



## North Star (22 Sep 2006)

While not a big fan of Jason Kenney, he delivered a good throat punch to Taliban Jack in the House today:

From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060922.w2karzai09221/BNStory/National/home

During Question Period, meanwhile, NDP Leader Jack Layton questioned the government's commitment to balance its efforts, saying Ottawa spends far more on defence measures than on aid.

Conservative MP Jason Kenney, Mr. Harper's parliamentary secretary, however, responded by accusing the NDP of “hypocrisy” in its position on the mission.

“Mr. Speaker, let me say the NDP says they're in favour of multilateralism, but they want to pull out of Afghanistan unilaterally,” he said.

“They say they're in favour of the United Nations, but they're against our participation in the world's most important UN Mission. They say they're in favour of peace and development, but they don't want protection so that we can do civil reconstruction and development.”


----------



## MPIKE (22 Sep 2006)

On the CBC...

Karzai to sit down with Peter Mansbridge tonight on the National.

and ..

"Taliban Jack" to respond to today's ceremonies at 1400hrs CBC Newsworld.   You actually think he would pass up a chance to be in the limelight?? : 

So hold writing letters to NDP until he bleets then. No doubt more things to pin him on there.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Sep 2006)

PIKER said:
			
		

> "Taliban Jack" to respond to today's ceremonies at 1400hrs CBC Newsworld.   You actually think he would pass up a chance to be in the limelight?? :
> 
> So hold writing letters to NDP until he bleets then. No doubt more things to pin him on there.



I'm watching Taliban jack flap his gums on newsworld right now....still singing the same song about negotiatiing and bringing the troops home.........bitching about taknks and jets........twisting the Afghan president's words.... :


----------



## Reccesoldier (22 Sep 2006)

;D

From the CTV article:



> NDP Leader Jack Layton, who has called for Canadian troops to come home, says he has repeatedly requested a meeting with the Afghan president, but has so far received no response.



Taliban Jack, Irrelevant in two countries.  ;D ;D


----------



## aesop081 (22 Sep 2006)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> ;D
> 
> From the CTV article:
> 
> Taliban Jack, Irrelevant in two countries.  ;D ;D



Taliban jack was saying during his interview that he met him for about 10 minutes and will meet him again in Montreal..........wtf ?


----------



## McG (22 Sep 2006)

> *Karzai thanks Canadians for support
> Afghanistan president addresses Parliament*
> Meagan Fitzpatrick, CanWest News Service
> Published: Friday, September 22, 2006
> ...


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=00d21e40-f1c1-4967-a98f-cf8b80e15429&k=91460


----------



## Journeyman (22 Sep 2006)

> *NDP Leader Jack Layton has made several requests for a meeting with the Afghan leader — and has had no reply*.





			
				cdnaviator said:
			
		

> *Taliban Jack was saying during his interview that he met him for about 10 minutes and will meet him again in Montreal..........wtf ?*



Perhaps Jack was hiding in a washroom stall or something........   ;D


----------



## a_majoor (23 Sep 2006)

Jack Layton: I want Canada to withdraw, I want you to negotiate with the Taliban , blah blah blah

Hamid Karzai: I'm sorry, my translator was unable to comprehend what you just said. I must catch my plane now, but perhaps you can visit me in Kabul and say your piece. Farewell.

Jack Layton: But, but........


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Sep 2006)

:rofl:


----------



## The_Falcon (23 Sep 2006)

This was in The Toronto Star of all places   (Surprising I know)

Fair Dealings etc..

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1158875419940&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist969907621263



> Canada gave its word on Afghan undertaking
> Sep. 22, 2006. 01:00 AM
> ROSIE DIMANNO
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (23 Sep 2006)

Not necessarily surprising; perhaps she looked over at Christie Blatchford of the Globe & Mail receiving this year's Ross Munro Media Award for defence reporting and thought, "hmmmm...maybe I should jump on that bandwagon. After all, newspaper-buying people are supporting the troops, even if the left side of government isn't." 

However, she's still a product of her politicial upbringing:


> *The UN peacekeeping presence in Bosnia, after all, encompassed 60,000 troops*.



The UN _peacekeeping_ presence was an abysmal failure. 
Success required the mission to be turned over to NATO, with a mandate to kill bad guys if necessary, to compel adherence to the Dayton Accords. Only after this point was reached, was the environment suitable for a peacekeeping force. (Even then, the UN was not trusted with it; hence it being a European Union mission)

Today, more than ever, a war-_fighting_ force must be deployed to set the conditions for any subsequent peacekeeping, reconstruction, development, etc. 

Why is it that so many people miss that simple reality? 


Edit: sorry, I forgot a word or two...


----------



## redcollar (23 Sep 2006)

President Karzai mentioned...


> The tragedy of Sept. 11 showed in a terrible way the flaws of the arguments against helping
> Afghanistan. For one thing, it showed that, in fact, the cost of ignoring Afghanistan was far higher than
> the cost of helping it," he said.


Maybe I'm being conned, maybe I'm a sap, but I believe these words wholeheartedly.

There was no intervention in Cambodia, in Rwanda and look how things turned out when there is no
interference.  There is no perfect solution, but choosing the lesser of two evils is better than no choice
at all.  Very few things are perfect.  Progress isn't perfect, but it's there.  85% effective capacity isn't
perfect, but being there doing the job sounds perfect to me.

Some say we interfere in local politics, on sovereign land, but how can we ignore this?  NATO members
have decided to spread rule of law and human rights AND support local customs and religions.  This is our
vision of the world, a vision that not everyone shares.  I agree that we are interfering, and I don't apologie
for it.  We're doing good.  We're helping.  Why would they complain, and who exactly is complaining?

Tyrants, bullies and druglords don't want us there.  I'm tempted to ignore their point of view.

Many in Canada don't want us there either.  Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe are my favorites these days
for their choice to side against NATO, the UN and basic Canadian values.  Nay-Sayers will always believe
that we have the wrong army anyway, will never accept that war is inevitable (but we do chose our battles).

Interesting link for all Left-Wing Nay-Sayers: The Wrong Army  
(ignore the cheesy music, it mentions that we'd never get anything done if we were led by Nay-Sayers.)

Maybe Mr.Duceppe should get his wish:  A live debate.  I'd love to see PM Harper on TV explaining in simple terms
how we are not American puppets, that we are doing a good job with limited ressources and that polls are not
giving us the right idea of current affairs.  President Karzai was preaching for his interests, but it's also our interests.

Seeing 92% of New Democrats vote for the return of our troops isn't reality, it doesn't support our best interests.  
It certainly doesn't represent Canada's point of view as a whole.  Giving up on reconstruction and turning our backs 
to the other NATO forces, we can't accept that.  

It's one side of the coin.  

The side of the coin that won't get elected, but their ideas will have a platform in the next elections. 

I can't wait to hear from Mr. Dryden.  I believe he will have a lot of weight in the coming months, 
I hope he listens to reason rather than polls.  I don't think he took any side yet concerning Afghanistan.


----------



## boondocksaint (23 Sep 2006)

I like her comment on the Mujadeheen, we met alot of former Muj that now are Police Commanders etc.

they said they fought to free Astan from the russians, and are doing the same against the TB, and these were among some of the scariest old school dudes I'd ever met, glad they're on our side


----------



## warspite (23 Sep 2006)

I do love it ever so much when the NDP's beliefs and policies blow up in their face and show them for the fools that they are. ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Sep 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Not necessarily surprising; perhaps she looked over at Christie Blatchford of the Globe & Mail receiving this year's Ross Munro Media Award for defence reporting and thought, "hmmmm...maybe I should jump on that bandwagon. After all, newspaper-buying people are supporting the troops, even if the left side of government isn't."



Actually that's a bit unfair to Ms. diManno.  Despite the perspective of her employer I have found her articles to be generally supportive of both the troops and the principles of the mission - if not the details.


----------



## Journeyman (23 Sep 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Actually that's a bit unfair to Ms. diManno.  Despite the perspective of her employer I have found her articles to be generally supportive of both the troops and the principles of the mission - if not the details.



I've known her since late-winter 1995, when it was announced that the Airborne was being disbanded (so maybe it's my own baggage). Feel free to research diManno's rabid anti-militarism from that period, based on absolutely _no_ actual research - - at least Christie Blatchford came up to Pet and talked with the troops!

I have no use for her. The fact that she writes something remotely positive now, based on which way the wind is blowing, surprises me not in the least.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Sep 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I've known her since late-winter 1995, when it was announced that the Airborne was being disbanded (so maybe it's my own baggage). Feel free to research diManno's rabid anti-militarism from that period, based on absolutely _no_ actual research - - at least Christie Blatchford came up to Pet and talked with the troops!
> 
> I have no use for her. The fact that she writes something remotely positive now, based on which way the wind is blowing, surprises me not in the least.



Point taken JM.  I have only been aware of her recent work.


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Sep 2006)

From the horse's ***:

Why Canada must review mission
_Toronto Star_, Sept. 26
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1159221038634&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795



> Debate over Canada's combat role in southern Afghanistan is growing. In the last few days, Canadians have had the opportunity to hear from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
> 
> But who's listening to the millions of everyday Canadians who are reaching the conclusion that this is the wrong mission for Canada?..
> 
> ...



I wonder what Taliban Jack bin Layton has to say to the family of Safia Ama Jan, and to Fariba Ahmedi.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060926.AFGHANSLAIN26/TPStory/?query=afghanistan

Layton plays incredibly fast and loose with facts. I just saw Pres. Karzai at his White House press conference with Pres. Bush. Karzai made it clear that offensive military action against the Taliban, as this is essential to create security for the development, education etc. that must also be undertaken--and Pakistan needs to act, especially against the madrassas teaching fundamentalism.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (26 Sep 2006)

The world is full of Laytons....here's another

FERRERO GOVT. MUST TALK ABOUT WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN
http://www.agi.it/english/news.pl?doc=200609261444-1087-RT1-CRO-0-NF82&page=0&id=agionline-eng.italyonline

(AGI) - Naples, Sept. 26 - Social solidarity minister Paolo Ferrero was in Naples today. He said that the government must talk about the withdrawal from Afghanistan soon. According to the minister the situation there is evolving negatively and this is not anymore a peace keeping mission but a war mission. According to Ferrero the party will raise this issue. The mission has been financed up to the year's end but we must find a solution to exit from this situation, he said.
   - 
261444 SET 06 
COPYRIGHTS 2002-2006 AGI S.p.A.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (26 Sep 2006)

Riddled with factual errors, as usual:


In short, this current mission is a strategic blunder by Harper, the Conservative government and the Liberals who helped them keep us there.

In fact, this was _entirely_ a Liberal deployment.


This is not a view shared by Karzai who just this past Thursday told the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, "Bombings in Afghanistan are no solution to the Taliban. You do not destroy terrorism by bombing villages."

This is a selective quote.  Karzai made it quite clear last week that the military element of the effort was critical and praised Canada extensively for its role in S. Afghanistan.


Just last weekend Australia announced it was withdrawing its entire 200-strong special forces.

This is blatently untrue.  Australia is - as I type - training for a deployment to S. Afghanistan.


Across Europe, member nations of NATO — including Germany, France, Italy and Turkey — are refusing to commit troops to the military offensive in Kandahar province where Canadian troops are stationed.

So, the NDP would suggest taking the easy road out?  These countries haven't refused to deploy forces to the south because they disagree with the mission.  Instead, they've balked at deploying because of a fear of casualties and a lack of political will...


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Sep 2006)

A guest-post at _Daimnation!_:

"Mr Layton: Canada must change mission in Western Europe [1944"]
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/007671.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (27 Sep 2006)

> Afghan mission off track: Martin
> *Former PM stands by his decision to send troops*
> Sep. 27, 2006. 08:31 AM
> BILL SCHILLER
> ...


----------



## McG (27 Sep 2006)

. . . and the retort.


> Harper slams Martin on Afghanistan mission comments
> Allan Woods, CanWest News Service
> Published: Wednesday, September 27, 2006
> 
> ...


----------



## Cliffy433 (27 Sep 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/27/harper-martin.html

Notice the headline sucks you in, thinking it will finally be an anti-Liberal piece, but then they only devote 4 paragraphs to the PM, and 5 to the anti-PM side... guess which paras read better?

Fair Dealings... Copyright Act... blah, blah, blah



> _*Harper lashes out at Martin for criticizing Afghan mission*_
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper slammed Paul Martin on Tuesday for saying there's too much military emphasis on the mission in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (28 Sep 2006)

Is anyone else getting tired of hearing our enlightened press come back from Afghanistan and say, "but if we just lined our troops up around one village, and make it all pretty and perfect, all of Afghanistan would change"?  If we fail to root out the Taliban, then that perfect little Canadian village we built would disappear in a nightmare of blood and fire the second those troops were withdrawn, as an object lesson of what daring to live outside the Talibans narrow interpretation of Islam.  To leave while the Taliban has the means to return, and before the Afghan government has the ability to not only defend its people, but administer them beyond the city limits of Kabul, is to doom those who have dared to try to rebuild that nation to watch it all go down into the dark a second time.  When we leave Afghanistan will be an Islamic republic, a third world nation with a low standard of living and struggling educational system.  The country will belong to the Afghan people, with the freedom to succeed or fail in their attempts to guide themselves towards a future of their own choosing.  This isn't a war to end all wars, Afghanistan is not ever going to be the garden spot of the middle east, and we will pay in blood and treasure for the task of rebuilding this nation.  It is a job that needs to be done, we are the nation that has sworn to do it, and if our soldiers think it worth the price they are paying, then the press and politicians can take a lesson from basic training and SHUT UP AND SOLDIER!


----------



## SSampson (28 Sep 2006)

I too (as we all are) am sick and tired of so many politicians using military involvement as a political issue. While we all must support freedom of expression, it seems that this has been traded off in the political foray for an eagerness to oppose whomever is in power.

While I certainly recognize that any Military involvement needs to be discussed as a matter of course, it is important that the government support our those in combat by recognizing that there is a need to have purpose for soldiers to do their job. 

I did 5 years – 82 to 87 – and I would still be there if I didn’t have bolts and screws in my leg. During that time I personally remember getting both a wave or the finger from passing civilians. Then in ’95, long after I had departed, getting the BIG finger from Chretien as CAR was disbanded. (personally I think he should be incarcerated for his criminal activity with the sponsorship scandal, but that is another topic – I will desist). Despite this, however, I still believe that the job of a soldier is to defend their country and the individual rights IN said country. This unfortunately means listening to a lot of stuff we may disagree with from time to time.

I think one of the major problems with many governments, including our own, is that those in power have NO military experience. While this obviously could never be a requirement for political office, it wouldn’t hurt that when someone without experience is elected that they listen to the troops when making decisions. When I was in we had the now thankfully replaced 64 pattern webbing (CRAP), the Iltis was beginning to appear in small numbers and close to 8,000 MLVWs were brought in (I can still taste the exhaust fumes from the under-carriage exhaust, remember moving the heat shield to get off the spare, and constantly banging the damn mirror every time I opened the bloody door). We were also looking at alternatives to the C1 (which frankly I would still prefer to the C7, but I am SURE many would disagree). We also pay more for grenades now because we produce them in Canada despite a high failure rate. My point is that all of these decisions seem to be made WITHOUT consulting those who actually know anything.  

Canada SHOULD be involved militarily in Afghanistan. There are numerous reasons. It is a JUST cause. It increases the skills of our military. It helps evaluate our equipment in combat. While I personally would have been opposed to Iraq as this was always about greed and NOT about human rights (as a primary goal), we are NOT there, therefore it should not be used to predicate a reason for NOT being in Afghanistan 
Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan and Afghanistan are all locations that Canadian Soldiers should be (or should have been). I believe in supporting human rights internationally, be it as peacekeepers OR peace makers. We have a LONG and proud tradition in this area and we are very capable in these areas. From Vimy and the Hindenburg line in WWI, to D-Day in WWII, we have proven our skills, commitment and reliability. In WWII we committed more troops per capita than any other country apart from USSR and Germany. (as for Somalia, had the CO and chain of command accepted responsibility – granted not culpability – for the actions of a few, and DEALT with the issue, CAR would still be here. So I blame BOTH the government and the involved 'Officers')

Anyway, I am rambling…

SUPPORT THE TROOPS – SUPPORT AFGHANISTAN AS A JUST CAUSE. Remember, we live in a society where freedom of speech is our responsibility, therefore it is ALSO our responsibility to tell Canada what WE think as current or ex military personnel (or supporters of our Military)

Another  couple of things… If you live in close to a family of a fallen soldier, or near one who  is injured and incapacitated, lend a hand !!! There is something that we can all do !! Even us old guys who are no longer able to serve in the field.

The Federal Government is also shutting down some reserve units across the country. While I only spent 1 year in the reserve, I spent 5 years as a Cadet that was attached to the reserve unit. Many people that went reg. also did this (in my time anyway). We need to help support these Units and prevent them from shutting down. Otherwise the military will be comprised of only those from Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver…. 

Cheers

Scott A. Sampson
BTW – Is it me, or do we all think that the American Air Force trains whilst hunting with Dick Cheney??


----------



## pbi (30 Sep 2006)

SSampson: I am also a big believer in free speech, even if it hurts. IMHO one of the key guardians of a real democracy is a free press, supported by the idea that everybody has the right to express themselves. In the military we will probably always have our differences with the media, but guess what: so will the police, Big Govt, Big Corporations, Big Churches, corrupt politicians, unions, and anybody else who attracts the searchlight of the media. If the right wing AND the left wing scream equally that the media are the dupes of the other side, then the media has probably got it about right. And, as far as I know (at least in Canada and the US...) both those groups carry on endlessly about the hated media that won't serve their ends.

As I have remarked before on these pages, I have seen our military come a very, very long way in its dealings with the media, both in how we approach them and in how they treat us. Do they eat out of our hand? No, but wake up and smell the printing ink: that isn't their job. What I fear is that, under the pressure of OPSEC, ou under the concerns of a govt that does not enjoy a honeymoon with the Ottawa press gallery, we in the CF will retreat to the backward approach we had in the 1970's: don't talk to the media. In a society and world like ours, information is both a tool and a weapon (guess what: it always has been...) and if we do not win the info fight, somebody else will. It is as much a part of the joint effort as "3D plus C" or launching an Op MEDUSA. I hope we don't forget that.



> The Federal Government is also shutting down some reserve units across the country



Really? What units are these? The trend in the Army Reserve in the last four years has been to expand into new locations, develop new capabilities and increase recruiting. I would be interested to know what units have been closed.



> BTW – Is it me, or do we all think that the American Air Force trains whilst hunting with Dick Cheney??



Before we slag the US Air Force(and US Army aviation), remember that they fly hundreds of very successful missions in support of our troops on the ground. I have heard wounded Canadian soldiers, or soldiers involved in the recent fratricide strike, speak about the trust they place in the US pilots and how much they depend on them for success. Those US pilots set out each day to do the best they can: they don't set out to kill their fellow soldiers.  If you served in the army, you know that the battlespace is a very confused, frightening and ever-changing place. A ground attack pilot has a few seconds to make a decision to release on target, and he must not risk being hit by MANPADS or ground fire. I think that if some of us had to go through the same experience, we might not be so quick to judge our comrades in the air.

Cheers


----------



## Infanteer (30 Sep 2006)

The OC of the Company involved personally said that he felt for the poor guy who hit our own guys (I do as well) and said that it was part of accepting the awesome CAS that they deliver.  I didn't see any ill feelings about what is, as PBI pointed out, part of the fog and confusion of the battlefield.

Hopefully that's all that needs to be said.


----------



## McG (4 Oct 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Reproduced from cbc.ca under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
> 
> Peacekeeping has 'failed' , says Dallaire
> CBC News: Thursday, September 28, 2006 | 12:01 PM ET
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Oct 2006)

Another slap for the MSM; they are very quick to jump on the deaths and injuries of our soldiers; what about the reasons that they are there?

http://uncommontruths.blogspot.com/2006/10/i-told-you-so.html



> Thursday, October 05, 2006
> I Told You So
> The Canadian soldiers who were killed two days ago were on guard duty, protecting workers who were constructing a new road.
> 
> Here's a flashback (http://uncommontruths.blogspot.com/2006/09/layton-fiddles-while-afghanistan-burns.html) to a post I wrote in September regarding the difficulties of building something while being shot at.


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Oct 2006)

From the front page of the Ottawa Citizen--perhaps some of our Opposition politicians may read this:

Canada right to keep troops in Afghanistan
UN peacekeeping chief
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=c04d64c5-15cb-434b-9f17-4c75cbf58d82



> The chief of United Nations peacekeeping operations yesterday praised Canada for deploying a sizable force to Afghanistan, saying the entire NATO deployment is providing "very important" help to the world body's work in that country.
> 
> Making the comments during a briefing on the UN's own burgeoning peacekeeping commitments around the world, Jean-Marie Guehenno effectively endorsed the arguments Prime Minister Stephen Harper made in his recent UN address on why Canada had intervened in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Oct 2006)

Where is Mr. Layton et al now?  How will they spin this one to re-direct into Darfur?  I think they (the NDP) don't realise that Canada cannot contribute to EVERY UN mission ongoing, and that by being hip deep in one actually frees up other members of the UN to go to other places (eg: Darfur)\

As an aside, I watched Question Period the other night.  An honourable member was lambasting why we were still in Afghanistan, it's so brutal, not winnable, etc, but then, in the same breath, asked why we weren't going to Darfur to protect the innocent.  I simply shouted "WTF" at the television.  My wife understood me, I woke my 9 year old, and the dog left the room...


----------



## Haggis (5 Oct 2006)

VG:

You shouldn't have scared the dog.  The NDP support PETA.


----------



## Shadowolf (5 Oct 2006)

If Mr. Harper said that it will be a nice day tomorrow, Mr. Layton would reply that these nice days are causing drought therefore social assistance should be sent to the farmers.  'Think of the starving children, Mr. Prime Minister'.  

Its good to see some in the UN bureaucracy are appreciative of something other than failed UN peacekeeping missions.


----------



## Sub_Guy (5 Oct 2006)

This is what grinds my gears.....   :rage:

Now if this story had said the opposite it would be all over the national media, but it praises the mission so it is a shit stain in the daily news.  The political bantering that occurs in this country drives me up the fucking wall.  Living in BC isn't doing anything for my blood pressure, as most in this province are NDP crazy, it is getting so bad that some people I work with say the same crap that LAYTON shoots out of his trap.  I just don't get any of it.  :rage:

I don't know how you can get up in the morning and put on the uniform and be so out of touch with what our military is doing and WHY we are doing it!!!   :rage:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Oct 2006)

People hear what they want to hear and the media publishes what they want the people to want.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Oct 2006)

And the government can't get the message out because it comes from the government and is discounted as unreportable propaganda.

If the government goes on the road to sell the message it is morally bankrupt and engaging in promoting partisan political ends to win the next election.

Other voices are obviously stooges of George Bush, party hacks and idiots.

I luv democracy in action.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Oct 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> VG:
> 
> You shouldn't have scared the dog.  The NDP support PETA.



PETA?  People Eating Tasty Animals?


----------



## Boxkicker (5 Oct 2006)

I know that we are a democracy and all and even the NDP is allowed to have an opinion. But has anyone else considered breaking QR&O's to speak up and offer MR. Layton a cup of shut the F*** up as well. I do know that I would love to, is there anything we can do to let the chain of command allow us to speak publically. Maybe that will just end all of his crap, if the public hears how the soldiers of this country support this mission.


----------



## Boxkicker (5 Oct 2006)

I just emailed the post from the Ruxted group along with this note.



  Mr. Layton I have sent several message’s to your constituency office with NO reply. I feel that you should know that we the soldiers of this country support the current mission in Afghanistan, it is a mission that we can be proud of un-like any UN missions. In my and many of my friend’s opinions the comments you make are a complete morale breaker. To hear you say that we are peacekeepers is actually insulting to a great many of us and find completely derogatory, we are soldiers proud professionals. No matter what branch of the service Army, Navy of Air Force this is a mission that we can be proud of.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2006)

At the risk of getting back on topic  ;D : http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/24-The-Afghanistan-Debate.html 

This is from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_.  It is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=4fedce12-9a14-4a5c-aba6-e70002a38817&k=63439 


> Tories reignite support for war in Afghanistan
> *57% now support combat operations, but many doubt mission is succeeding*
> 
> Andrew Mayeda
> ...




There are a few worrisome points:

•	The so-called _expiry date_ in 2009.  People like LGen Leslie have been warning that this might be a 20 years mission.  Our own Ruxted Group suggest it is the work of generations – as long as many peacekeeping missions;

•	The low percentage (≥40) who believe the mission will not succeed.  That may mean that some Canadians, maybe quite a few, believe we should stay the course even as they believe we will fail; and

•	The low levels of support in Québec (45%) and amongst women (51%).


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Oct 2006)

> "It's a realistic response," Mr. Wright said of poll respondents. "The question is when are we winning and what will a win look like? We're not winning yet. There are still firefights and there are still a lot of casualties."



The presence of firefights and casualties does not necessarily indicate "We're not winning yet" damye.  Would Mr. Wright say that the loss of Police Officers on duty, mothers murdering babies and insurrection in Caledonia indicate that we are not yet winning the domestic "War on Barbarism" (copyright Edward Campbell 2006) here in Canada?  Bollocks.

On the plus side, even the worrisome stats concerning women and Quebecers are likely to be considered as brilliant news by the Conservatives.  If they could have scored 51% of the women and 45% of the Quebecers in the last election they would have had a massive majority.....

At very least they are demonstrating that it is possible to remove that card from the hands of the opposition - hence, I suspect, the shift of the opposition to a focus on the environment.  But speculation on that will drag this back off topic after Edward just put us back on.


----------



## warspite (7 Oct 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Public backing for the war in Afghanistan has surged after an aggressive campaign by the Conservative government to build support for the mission, but most Canadians want the troops to come home when the country's military commitment ends in 2009, according to a new poll.
> 
> The poll was conducted between Sept. 26 and 28 by Ipsos Reid for CanWest News Service and Global National.
> 
> *It shows 57 per cent of Canadians support the use of troops in combat operations in Afghanistan*


Well there goes Taliban Jacks theory right out the window. ;D

But could this be the changing point in the momentum of support for the war? If a majority of Canadians support the war than its in the media's interest to cast it in a positive light... thereby further increasing the number of people who support the war which in turn could increase..... and so on as the snowball effect comes into play.


----------



## bilton090 (7 Oct 2006)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> Once again, an excellent editorial.
> 
> Require reading, Jack Layton


                    Can Jack Layton read ?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (7 Oct 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> Well there goes Taliban Jacks theory right out the window. ;D
> 
> But could this be the changing point in the momentum of support for the war? If a majority of Canadians support the war than its in the media's interest to cast it in a positive light... thereby further increasing the number of people who support the war which in turn could increase..... and so on as the snowball effect comes into play.



I like your thinking,  but I don't think it works as cleanly as that.  Please remember what gets ratings, controversy, gore and Mothers collapsing on tarmacks as a flag draped coffin goes into a hearse. Last night on the news I got to see controversy over the danger pay (some gore); I saw a Mother crying and told she broke down. I felt so bad for everyone involved and my first thought was "What can I do to make it better".  I think most of those who are against the war see these images and say "whatever we're there for it isn't worth it" so logically they are doing what they can to help to get us out.  

It has been my experience that those who are against this war,  are unsure of why we are there.  A good number of our fellow Canadians have the Iraq issue in mind when they think of the mission in Afghanistan.  Once I took the time to explain what they did,  the threat that they posed, how they promised to do more and had the ability to do so,  I've only had one person say that this war was unjustified.  (He disagreed with my assertion that we were attacked by Al-quida which was harboured by the Taliban)  He then went on to say Afghanistan was a civil war we had no right to choose sides in - and in the next paragraph argue how we should go into Darfur ... Yes he is a Dipper federal Candidate.

I think that if we want to change public opinion,  we need to 1) get the message out as to why we're there 2) Give people a constructive (helpfull) outlet to make things better 3) Better clarify out current foreign policy. (We're not in Iraq, they didn't threaten us, or attack us, or help anyone who did or would and Iraq posed no immediate or intolerable threat to us whereas Afghanistan did)

For one and three,  all we need to do is to simply talk to people.  Respectfull discussion is the fastest way to get results(remember they are honestly thinking they are doing the right thing,  if you can convince them of the rightness of our actions then they'll with equal fervour the mission).  Now,  what can we set up to get the public a feeling like they are contributing. I know we have that Red Fridays thing going on,  but that just shows support - how can we get the public involved in a way that actually helps out and gives them tangible feedback?  (Something like the war bonds - but we're running a huge surplus right now, so we don't really need any fundraising)

How about this,  everyone wants more aid in Afghanistan,  how about we set up an adopt a community program.   You know set up an umbrella Organisation to help fund NGOs to do things like clear landmines,  supply schools with paper, road reconstruction and so forth. Just think of it 100 dollars clears one landmine,  75 dollars buys a little girl paper and pens and schooling for a year. Then we can put out the numbers for the results of how many landmines were removed, how many schools built (minus the number suicide bombed into rubble) I think people would be quite upset if the school they did a fun run to build was bombed into rubble.  I know we are putting allot of money towards reconstruction already,  but it would provide allot of people with the feeling that they are directly helping and it would be usefull (more money is always/usually good).


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Oct 2006)

For those who forget that the UN is behind the Afghanistan mission, a resolution passed 12 Oct 06, extending "the authorization of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)."

UN Link
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/517/70/PDF/N0651770.pdf?OpenElement
Permalink if that doesn't work
http://milnewstbay.pbwiki.com/f/N0651770.pdf

Resolution 1707 (2006)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 5521st meeting, on 12 September 2006

The Security Council,

Reaffirming its previous resolutions on Afghanistan, in particular its
resolutions 1386 (2001) of 20 December 2001, 1413 (2002) of 23 May 2002, 1444
(2002) of 27 November 2002, 1510 (2003) of 13 October 2003, 1563 (2004) of
17 September 2004, 1623 (2005) of 13 September 2005 and 1659 (2006) of
15 February 2006,

Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial
integrity and national unity of Afghanistan,

Reaffirming also its resolutions 1368 (2001) of 12 September 2001 and 1373
(2001) of 28 September 2001 and reiterating its support for international efforts to
root out terrorism in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
Recognizing that the responsibility for providing security and law and order
throughout the country resides with the Afghans themselves and welcoming the
cooperation of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan with the
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF),

Recognizing once again the interconnected nature of the challenges in
Afghanistan, reaffirming that sustainable progress on security, governance and
development, as well as on the cross-cutting issue of counter-narcotics, is mutually
reinforcing and welcoming the continuing efforts of the Afghan Government and the
international community to address these challenges,

Stressing, in this regard, the importance of the Afghanistan Compact and its
annexes, launched at the London Conference, which provide the framework for the
partnership between the Afghan Government and the international community,
Expressing its concern about the security situation in Afghanistan, in particular
the increased violent and terrorist activity by the Taliban, Al-Qaida, illegally armed
groups and those involved in the narcotics trade, which has resulted in increased
Afghan civilian casualties,

Reiterating its call on all Afghan parties and groups to engage constructively
in the peaceful political development of the country and to avoid resorting to
violence including through the use of illegal armed groups,

Stressing, in this context, the importance of the security sector reform
including further strengthening of the Afghan National Army and Police,
disbandment of illegal armed groups, justice sector reform and counter-narcotics,

Expressing, in this context, its support for the Afghan Security Forces, with the
assistance of ISAF and the Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) coalition in
contributing to security in Afghanistan and in building the capacity of the Afghan
Security Forces, and welcoming the extension of ISAF into Southern Afghanistan,
with effect from 31 July 2006, the planned further ISAF expansion into Eastern
Afghanistan and the increased coordination between ISAF and the OEF coalition,

Expressing its appreciation to the United Kingdom for taking over the lead
from Italy in commanding ISAF, and recognizing with gratitude the contributions of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and many nations to ISAF,
Determining that the situation in Afghanistan still constitutes a threat to
international peace and security,

Determined to ensure the full implementation of the mandate of ISAF, in
consultation with the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan,
Acting for these reasons under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United
Nations,

1. *Decides to extend the authorization of the International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF)*, as defined in resolution 1386 (2001) and 1510 (2003), for
a period of twelve months beyond 13 October 2006;

2. *Authorizes the Member States participating in ISAF to take all necessary
measures to fulfil its mandate*;

3. Recognizes the need to further strengthen ISAF, and in this regard calls
upon Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to
ISAF, and to make contributions to the Trust Fund established pursuant to resolution
1386 (2001);

4. Calls upon ISAF to continue to work in close consultation with the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Special Representative
of the Secretary-General as well as with the OEF coalition in the implementation of
the force mandate;

5. Requests the leadership of ISAF to provide quarterly reports on
implementation of its mandate to the Security Council through the Secretary-
General;

6. Decides to remain actively seized of this matter.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Oct 2006)

I find it interesting on a leftist board I post on (Tyee.ca) that they neglect to mention the UN support for this mission. It's all about oil or gas or pipelines, just another evil Bush plot.  :


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (16 Oct 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I find it interesting on a leftist board I post on (Tyee.ca) that they neglect to mention the UN support for this mission. It's all about oil or gas or pipelines, just another evil Bush plot.  :



http://tyee.ca/

"Tyee Building Supplies Ltd is located in Prince Rupert’s Cow Bay area, comprising of some 30,000 square feet and provides building supplies and other services to towns and villages from the Queen Charlotte Islands to Alaska and as far South as Hartley Bay"
I had no idea that company was a leftest haven :-D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Oct 2006)

Sorry my bad!     thetyee.ca


check out this crap......


http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/10/16/OperationBackfire/



> While the media in Canada continues to soft-peddle the country's disastrous "mission" in Afghanistan, a cursory examination of the facts reveals that the two men most responsible for this continuing nightmare are simply not up to the task of developing a strategy worthy of the name. Stephen Harper and Lieutenant General Rick Hillier, his "butt-kicking" military chief, have demonstrated a level of ineptitude that should have Canadians extremely worried.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (16 Oct 2006)

No fuss,  I kinda wanted to read the leftist blog.  

I have to take issue with a few of the points raised that that last article.  (I'll have to read the previous two before I start ripping them apart)  But at the very end they say "Crazy to negotiate?"  and saythat we should open negotiations with the Taliban.

I have to completely agree that starting talks with the Taliban isn't a bad idea.  But unless we are negotiating surrender we need to have something to bargin with.  For example we could offer blanket amnesty for all acts carried out against military targets in exchange for a general end to the fighting.   (Then we quickly get the Afghan government police/security to secure the borders, identify the guys who are suicide bombing schools and create general order.)  The new sense of calm would be the slow death the Taliban would not survive.

Even if the Taliban,  in their own intrests, rebuff our advances,  we can turn around and say they are unreasonable.  Or at the very least we could use the negotiations as a means to gether intelligence.  But in all seriousness,  I thought that we already were having talks with the taliban.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/05/taliban.talks/

"Military negotiations have found some success in Afghanistan. NATO recently confirmed that British commanders reached a cease-fire agreement with the Taliban via the local shura in the town of Musa Qala in Helmand, a province fraught with numerous military and civilian deaths."

We didn't want to go,  they attacked us and were going to do it again.  We don't want to stay,  but we have a duty to help.  We have nothing to gain materially,  but we will all benefit from a stable, democratic government in Afghanistan.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Oct 2006)

To my understanding, it’s always been a Good cop, bad cop thing. The Coalition plays the bad cop and the Afghan government plays the good cop, saying: Hey are you tired of being killed by the coalition? Then lets make a deal. In fact the Taliban walked away from talks back in 2003 and amnesty has been offered to most of them.


----------



## GAP (16 Oct 2006)

From the little I know, they figured they could get a better deal (eg: control of the south) by walking away. Didn't work....yet...don't let it


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (16 Oct 2006)

Still,  the point remains that unless you have something to negotiate with,  there is no reason to negotiate.  Surprisingly enough,  it works both ways.

The Taliban have only one thing to bring to the negotiations,  the end of their military actions.  However they know that as soon as they stop fighting,  they will loose their funding and seemingly endless stream of new recruits.  I honestly believe the people of Afghanistan would quickly do what traditionally happens to those who supported oppressive regimes and the Taliban would be at an end.  (Tendentious reasoning I know)

We have nothing to offer the Taliban.  We can not offer them amnesty for the recent terrorist attacks, (the local government can,  but still if I was one of the parents of a murdered child... ).  We can not offer them power or any sort of autonomous region (even as a trap to get them into one spot) If bribes worked on this group we would have simply bought Osama from them way back when and we wouldn't have had to invade.

What do we have to offer them in exchange for what they can never give?  I think we can't negotiate with them as an organisation,  I think we need to start to work at people inside. Bribe a fighter here,  pay off a squadron there - and to be blunt I'm sure we're already doing it.


----------



## McG (16 Oct 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> For example we could offer blanket amnesty for all acts carried out against military targets in exchange for a general end to the fighting.


That has been done.  Any member of the Taliban can lay down his weapons receive amnesty and return to a normal Afghan life.

. . . well in theory.  I understand from some news articles that there my be some challenges in the return to a normal life part.


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Oct 2006)

Tony Blair want the Canadian public to support the mission:

Blair tells Canadians to support Afghan mission
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/16/blair-canada.html

If only the NDP and those progressive Liberals could go along with a Labour PM.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Oct 2006)

One reason why many Canadians are confused about Afstan.  A letter just sent to the _Globe and Mail_:



> It's odd that one finds more accurate reporting in the Globe's editorials than in a front-page news story. Doug Saunders writes, in "Blair says bond with Canada is forged in battle" (Oct. 17),
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061017.AFGHANBLAIR17/TPStory/Front
> 
> that "Other than Canada, Britain is the only country that is part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization fighting in the dangerous southern provinces of Afghanistan."
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (17 Oct 2006)

"No wonder Canadians have a difficult time understanding what is happening in Afghanistan when reporting on the situation there is so inaccurate."

Well,  almost everyone I know will listen to a person over coffee who looks them in the eye and explains the purpose behind our actions in Afghanistan.  How it was sanctioned by the UN,  how many many countries are involved and what would happen if we were to all pull out.

I've only known one person who did not (even begrudgingly) admit that there was a justification for the war in Afghanistan after I sat down with them and hashed things out.  

I'm only bringing this experence up as a warning - if you havn't run into people of his ilk,  you will.  When I said they attacked us,  he brought up Iraq.  When I said "training camps" he brought up school of the Americas.  When I said that they had proven that they would attack us and that they said they would attack us again, he called me a jingoist.  He asked me why, if I supported the mission so much, I didn't join the army and help out.   I said that was a very valid statement and smiled.  He then looked at me in a slanted way and then said "Oh"  and then implied that I wanted to go over there to force myself on Afghan women.  (at that I was so upset I wasn't going to say anything intelligent so I left)   I only brought up that experience as a warning,  there are some people who I call "landmines".  If you're not carefull they will blow up on you.


----------



## Legless_Marine (22 Oct 2006)

I've read most of the thread, and it seems that most of the posts are along the lines of policy-approval, or critic-bashing.

What are participant thoughts on this mission from a purely military standpoint?


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2006)

Legless_Marine said:
			
		

> What are participant thoughts on this mission from a purely military standpoint?


What are your thoughts?


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (22 Oct 2006)

From a purely military standpoint our presence in Afghanistan is a necessity, not a luxury.  Given sanctuary and support, phase one guerrilla operations can be carried on forever.  Pakistan may have been the source of the Taliban, but it has never had control there.  Only in Afghanistan was the Taliban in open control, and able to collect and train its fanatics openly.  The drug revenue, and funds from hardline sympathizers throughout the region, gave the fanatics collected under the auspices of the Taliban the ability to plan and execute attacks throughout Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and North America, culminating in the infamous 9-11 attacks.  Our operations in Afghanistan are about cutting off that support base.  You cannot stop a fanatic who is determined to die for his cause from doing so.  You can stop the flow of arms, money, intelligence, and training that allows these fanatics to be collected, prepared, directed so as to make their separate actions a force for prosecuting the agenda of this poisoned offshoot of radical Islam against governments throughout the world.
Think of Afghanistan as a launchpad; only instead of SCUD or V2, their explosives are carried in luggage, or strapped to boy's chests when they take innocent lives at random, just as Iraqi Scud or Nazi V2 rockets did.   To protect your civilian population, the launchpad must be taken out.  Unlike conventional missiles, the launchers are not trucks or aircraft hangers that we can eliminate with smart bombs and airstrikes, but madrassas and training camps that must be sought out village by village, cave by cave, by infantry willing to get close enough to find the insurgents in a sea of innocent bystanders, and take them out.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (23 Oct 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I only brought up that experience as a warning,  there are some people who I call "landmines".  If you're not carefull they will blow up on you.



And by way of coincidence, there are some people who I deal with like a mine flail.  Funny symmetry, that.


----------



## d-fi (24 Oct 2006)

An interesting look at some Afghan viewpoints on the war in Afghanistan also some of the effects on the people there. Appears to written from a relatively impartial viewpoint, a rairity in modern journalism in my humble opinion. 

It is quite long so make sure you have a coffee going before you start.  

from this new york times link 

October 22, 2006
In the Land of the Taliban
By ELIZABETH RUBIN

One afternoon this past summer, I shared a picnic of fresh mangos and plums with Abdul Baqi, an Afghan Taliban fighter in his 20’s fresh from the front in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan. We spent hours on a grassy slope under the tall pines of Murree, a former colonial hill station that is now a popular resort just outside Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. All around us was a Pakistani rendition of Georges Seurat’s “Sunday on La Grande Jatte” — middle-class families setting up grills for barbecue, a girl and two boys chasing their errant cow with a stick, two men hunting fowl, boys flying a kite. Much of the time, Abdul Baqi was engrossed in the flight pattern of a Himalayan bird. It must have been a welcome distraction. He had just lost five friends fighting British troops and had seen many others killed or wounded by bombs as they sheltered inside a mosque.

He was now looking forward to taking a logic course at a madrasa, or religious school, near Peshawar during his holiday. Pakistan’s religious parties, he told me through an interpreter, would lodge him, as they did other Afghan Taliban fighters, and keep him safe. With us was Abdul Baqi’s mentor, Mullah Sadiq, a diabetic Helmandi who was shuttling between Pakistan and Afghanistan auditing Taliban finances and arranging logistics. He had just dispatched nine fighters to Afghanistan and had taken wounded men to a hospital in Islamabad. “I just tell the border guards that they were wounded in a tribal dispute and need treatment,” he told me.

And though Mullah Sadiq said they had lost many commanders in battles around Kandahar, he and Abdul Baqi appeared to be in good spirits, laughing and chatting loudly on a cellphone to Taliban friends in Pakistan and Afghanistan. After all, they never imagined that the Taliban would be back so soon or in such force or that they would be giving such trouble to the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai and some 40,000 NATO and U.S. troops in the country. For the first time since the fall of 2001, when the Taliban were overthrown, they were beginning to taste the possibility of victory.

As I traveled through Pakistan and particularly the Pashtun lands bordering Afghanistan, I felt as if I were moving through a Taliban spa for rehabilitation and inspiration. Since 2002, the American and Pakistani militaries have focused on North Waziristan and South Waziristan, two of the seven districts making up Pakistan’s semiautonomous tribal areas, which are between the North-West Frontier Province and, to the south, Baluchistan Province; in the days since the 9/11 attacks, some tribes there had sheltered members of Al Qaeda and spawned their own Taliban movement. Meanwhile, in the deserts of Baluchistan, whose capital, Quetta, is just a few hours’ drive from the Afghan city of Kandahar, the Afghan Taliban were openly reassembling themselves under Mullah Omar and his leadership council. Quetta had become a kind of free zone where strategies could be formed, funds picked up, interviews given and victories relished.

In June, I was in Quetta as the Taliban fighters celebrated an attack against Dad Mohammad Khan, an Afghan legislator locally known as Amir Dado. Until recently he was the intelligence chief of Helmand Province. He had worked closely with U.S. Special Forces and was despised by Abdul Baqi — and, to be frank, by most Afghans in the south. Mullah Razayar Nurzai (a nom de guerre), a commander of 300 Taliban fighters who frequently meets with the leadership council and Mullah Omar, took credit for the ambush. Because Pakistan’s intelligence services are fickle — sometimes supporting the Taliban, sometimes arresting its members — I had to meet Nurzai at night, down a dark lane in a village outside Quetta.

My guide was a Pakistani Pashtun sympathetic to the Taliban; we slipped into a courtyard and behind a curtain into a small room with mattresses and a gas lamp. In hobbled a rough, wild-looking graybeard with green eyes and a prosthetic limb fitted into a permanent 1980’s-era shoe. More than a quarter-century of warring had taken its toll on Nurzai’s 46-year-old body but not on his spirit. It was 10 at night, yet he was bounding with energy and bombast about his recent exploits in Kandahar and Helmand. A few days earlier, Nurzai and his men had attacked Amir Dado’s extended family. First, he told me, they shot dead his brother — a former district leader. Then the next day, as members of Dado’s family were driving to the site of the first attack, Nurzai’s men ambushed their convoy. Boys, cousins, uncles: all were killed. Dado himself was safe elsewhere. Nurzai was mildly disappointed and said that they had received bad information. He had no regrets about the killings, however. Abdul Baqi was also delighted by the attack. He would tell me that Dado used to burn rocket casings and pour the melted plastic onto the stomachs of onetime Taliban fighters he and his men had captured. Abdul Baqi also recalled that during the civil war that ended with the Taliban’s seizure of Kabul, Dado and his men had a checkpoint where they “grabbed young boys and robbed people.”

Mullah Omar and his followers formed the Taliban in 1994 to, among other things, bring some justice to Afghanistan and to expel predatory commanders like Dado. But in the early days of Karzai’s government, these regional warlords re-established themselves, with American financing, to fill the power vacuum that the coalition forces were unwilling to fill themselves. The warlords freely labeled their many enemies Al Qaeda or Taliban in order to push the Americans to eradicate them. Some of these men were indeed Taliban. Most, like Abdul Baqi, had accepted their loss of power, but they rejoined the Taliban as a result of harassment. Amir Dado’s own abuses had eventually led to his removal from the Helmand government at United Nations insistence. As one Western diplomat, who requested anonymity out of personal safety concerns, put it: “Amir Dado kept his own prison, authorized the use of serious torture, had very little respect for human life and made security worse.” Yet when I later met Amir Dado in Kabul, he pulled out a letter that an officer in the U.S. Special Forces had written requesting that the Afghan Ministry of Defense install him as Helmand’s police chief and claiming that in his absence “the quality of security in the Helmand Province has dramatically declined.”

One Place, Two Stories

I went to Afghanistan and Pakistan this summer to understand how and why the Taliban were making a comeback five years after American and Afghan forces drove them from power. What kind of experience would lead Afghans to reject what seemed to be an emerging democratic government? Had we missed something that made Taliban rule appealing? Were they the only opposition the aggrieved could turn to? Or, as many Afghans were saying, was this Pakistan up to its old tricks — cooperating with the Americans and Karzai while conspiring to bring back the Taliban, who had been valued “assets” before 9/11?

And why has the Bush administration’s message remained that Afghanistan is a success, Iraq a challenge? “In Afghanistan, the trajectory is a hopeful and promising one,” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wrote on the op-ed page of The Washington Post earlier this month. Afghanistan’s rise from the ashes of the anti-Taliban war would mean that the Bush administration was prevailing in replacing terror with democracy and human rights.

Meanwhile, a counternarrative was emerging, and it belonged to the Taliban, or the A.C.M., as NATO officers call them — the Anti-Coalition Militia. In Kabul, Kandahar and Pakistan, I found their video discs and tapes in the markets. They invoke a nostalgia for the jihad against the Russians and inspire their viewers to rise up again. One begins with clattering Chinooks disgorging American soldiers into the desert. Then we see the new Afghan government onstage, focusing in on the Northern Alliance warlords — Abdul Rashid Dostum, Burhanuddin Rabbani, Karim Khalili, Muhammad Fahim, Ismail Khan, Abdul Sayyaf. It cuts to American soldiers doing push-ups and pinpointing targets on maps; next it shows bombs the size of bathtubs dropping from planes and missiles emblazoned with “Royal Navy” rocketing through the sky; then it moves to hospital beds and wounded children. Message: America and Britain brought back the warlords and bombed your children. In the next clip, there are metal cages under floodlights and men in orange jumpsuits, bowed and crouching. It cuts back to the wild eyes of John Walker Lindh and shows trucks hauling containers crammed with young Afghan and Pakistani prisoners — Taliban, hundreds of whom would suffocate to death in those containers, supposedly at the command of the warlord and current army chief of staff, General Dostum. Then back to American guards wheeling hunger-striking Guantánamo prisoners on gurneys. Interspliced are older images, a bit fuzzy, of young Afghan men, hands tied behind their backs, heads bowed, hauled off by Communist guards. The message: Foreigners have invaded our lands again; Americans, Russians — no difference.

During the period from 1994 to 2001, the Taliban were a cloistered clique with little interest in global affairs. Today they are far more sophisticated and outward-looking. “The Taliban of the 90’s were concerned with their district or province,” says Waheed Muzhda, a senior aide at the Supreme Court in Kabul, who before the Taliban fell worked in their Foreign Ministry. “Now they have links with other networks. Before, only two Internet connections existed — one was with Mullah Omar’s office and the other at the Foreign Ministry here in Kabul. Now they are connected to the world.” Though this is still very much an Afghan insurgency, fueled by complex local grievances and power struggles, the films sold in the markets of Pakistan and Afghanistan merge the Taliban story with that of the larger struggle of the Muslim umma, the global community of Islam: images of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Israelis dragging off young Palestinian men and throwing off Palestinian mothers clinging to their sons. Humiliation. Oppression. Followed by the same on Afghan soil: Northern Alliance fighters perching their guns atop the bodies of dead Taliban. In the Taliban story, Special Forces soldiers desecrate the bodies of Taliban fighters by burning them, the Koran is desecrated in Guantánamo toilets, the Prophet Muhammad is desecrated in Danish cartoons and finally an apostate, Abdul Rahman, the Afghan who was arrested earlier this year for converting to Christianity, desecrates Islam and is not only not punished but is released and flown off to Italy.

It is not at all clear that Afghans want the return of a Taliban government. But even sophisticated Kabulis told me that they are fed up with the corruption. And in the Pashtun regions, which make up about half the country, Afghans are fed up with five years of having their homes searched and the young men of their villages rounded up in the name of counterinsurgency. Earlier this month in Kabul, Gen. David Richards, the British commander of NATO’s Afghanistan force, imagined what Afghans are thinking: “They will say, ‘We do not want the Taliban, but then we would rather have that austere and unpleasant life that that might involve than another five years of fighting.”’ He estimated that if NATO didn’t succeed in bringing substantial economic development to Afghanistan soon, some 70 percent of Afghans would shift their loyalty to the Taliban.

Nation-Building, Again

In the middle of Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand Province, a metal sign tilts into the road advertising the New York English Language Center. It is a relic of the last American nation-building scheme. Half a century ago, this town, built at the confluence of the Arghandab and Helmand Rivers, was the headquarters for an ambitious dam project partly financed by the United States and contracted out to Morrison-Knudsen, an engineering company that helped build Cape Canaveral and the Golden Gate Bridge.

Lashkar Gah (literally, “the place of soldiers”) was to be a model American town. Irrigation from the project would create farms out of the desert. Today you can still see the suburban-style homes with gardens open to the streets, although the typical Afghan home is a fort with walls guarding the family’s privacy. Those modernizing dreams of America and Afghanistan were eventually defeated by nature, culture and the war to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan in the 1980’s. What remains is an intense nostalgia among the engineers, cooks and farmers of Lashkar Gah, who remember that time as one of employment and peace. Today, Lashkar Gah is home to a NATO base.

Down the road from the base stands a lovely new building erected by an N.G.O. for the local Ministry of Women’s Affairs. It is big, white and, on the day I visited, was empty except for three women getting ready to leave. “It’s so close to the foreigners, and the women are afraid of getting killed by car bombs,” the ministry’s deputy told me. She was a school headmistress and landowner, dressed elegantly in a lime-colored blouse falling below the knees and worn over matching trousers. She weighed the Taliban regime against this new one in terms of pragmatic choices, not terror or ideology. She said that she had just wrapped up the case of a girl who had been kidnapped and raped by Kandahari police officers, something that would not have happened under the Taliban. “Their security was outstanding,” she said.

Under the Taliban, she said, a poppy ban was enforced. “Now the governors tell the people, ‘Just cultivate a little bit,”’ she said. “So people take this opportunity and grow a lot.” The farmers lease land to grow poppies. The British and the police eradicate it. The farmer can’t pay back the landowner. “So instead of paying, he gives the landowner his daughter.”

A few weeks before I arrived in Helmand, John Walters, the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, told reporters that Afghan authorities were succeeding in reducing opium-poppy cultivation. Yet despite hundreds of millions of dollars being allocated by Congress to stop the trade, a United Nations report in September estimated that this year’s crop was breaking all records — 6,100 metric tons compared with 4,100 last year. When I visited Helmand, schools in Lashkar Gah were closed in part because teachers and students were busy harvesting the crop. A prosecutor from the Crimes Department laughed as he told me that his clerk, driver and bodyguard hadn’t made it to work. They were all harvesting. It requires a lot of workers, and you can earn $12 a day compared with the $2 you get for wheat. Hence the hundreds of young, poor Talibs from Pakistan’s madrasas who had flocked to earn that cash and who made easy converts for the coming jihad.

Walters had singled out Helmand for special praise. Yet just a short drive from the provincial capital, I was surrounded by poppy farmers — 12-year-old boys, 75-year-old men — hard at work, their hands caked in opium paste as they scooped figlike pulp off the bulbs into a sack tied around their waists. One little boy was dragging a long poppy stem attached to a car he had made out of bulbs. Haji Abdul, a 73-year-old Moses of a man, was the owner of the farm and one of those nostalgic for the heyday of the Helmand Valley project. He had worked with Americans for 15 years as a welder and manager. He was the first to bring electricity to his district. Now there was none.

“Why do you think people put mines out for the British and Italians doing eradication when they came here to save us?” He answered his own question: “Thousands of lands ready for harvest were destroyed. How difficult will it be for our people to tolerate that! You are taking the food of my children, cutting my feet and disabling me. With one bullet, I will kill you.” Fortunately he didn’t have to kill anyone. He had paid 2,000 afghanis per jerib (about a half acre) of land to the police, he told me, adding that they would then share the spoils with the district administrator and all the other Interior Ministry officials so that only a small percentage of the poppy would be eradicated.

When I asked Manan Farahi, the director of counterterrorism efforts for Karzai’s government, why the Taliban were so strong in Helmand, he said that Helmandis had, in fact, hated the Taliban because of Mullah Omar’s ban on poppy cultivation. “The elders were happy this government was coming and they could plant again,” Farahi told me. “But then the warlords came back and let their militias roam freely. They were settling old scores — killing people, stealing their opium. And because they belonged to the government, the people couldn’t look to the government for protection. And because they had the ear of the Americans, the people couldn’t look to the Americans. Into this need stepped the Taliban.” And this time the Taliban, far from suppressing the drug trade, agreed to protect it.

A Dealer’s Life

The Continental Guest House in Kandahar, with its lovely gardens, potted geraniums and Internet access in every room, was mostly empty when I arrived, a remnant of the city’s recently stalled economic resurgence.

To find out how the opium trade works and how it’s related to the Taliban’s rise, I spent the afternoon with an Afghan who told me his name was Razzaq. He is a medium-level smuggler in his late 20’s who learned his trade as a refugee in Iran. He was wearing a traditional Kandahari bejeweled skull cap, a dark blazer and a white shalwar kameez, a traditional outfit consisting of loose pants covered by a tunic. He moved and spoke with the confident ease of a well-protected man. “The whole country is in our services,” he told me, “all the way to Turkey.” This wasn’t bravado. From Mazar-i-Sharif, in northern Afghanistan, he brings opium in the form of a gooey paste, packaged in bricks. From Badakhshan in the northeast, he brings crystal — a sugary substance made from heroin. And from Jalalabad, in the east on the road to Peshawar, he brings pure heroin. All of this goes through Baramcha, an unmanned border town in Helmand near Pakistan. Sometimes he pays off the national soldiers to use their vehicles, he said. Sometimes the national policemen. Or he hides it well, and if there is a tough checkpoint, he calls ahead and pays them off. “The soldiers get 2,000 afghanis a month, and I give them 100,000,” he explained with an angelic smile. “So even if I had a human head in my car, they’d let me go.” It’s not hard to see why Razzaq is so successful. He has a certain charm and looks like the modest tailor he once was, not a man steeped in illegal business.

Razzaq’s smuggling career began in Zahedan, a remote and unruly Iranian town near the border with Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is filled with Afghan refugees who, like Razzaq and his family, fled after the Russian invasion in 1979. Razzaq apprenticed as a tailor under his father and eventually opened his own shop, which the Iranians promptly shut down. They said he had no right as a refugee to own a shop. He began painting buildings, but that, too, proved a bureaucratic challenge. He was paid in checks, and the bank refused to cash them without a bank account, which he could not get.

Razzaq was newly married with dreams of a good life for his family. So one day he took a chance. “I had gotten to know smugglers at my tailoring shop,” he told me over a meal of mutton and rice on the floor of my hotel room. “One of them was an old man, so no one ever suspected him. The smugglers asked me to go with him to Gerdi Jangel” — an Afghan refugee town in Pakistan — “and bring back 750 grams of heroin to Zahedan. The security searched us on the bus, but I’d hidden it in the heels of my shoes, and of course they didn’t search the old man. I was so happy when we made it back. I thought I was born for the first time into this world.”

So he took another chance and managed to fly to Tehran carrying four kilos in his bag. Each time he overcame another obstacle, he became more addicted to the easy cash. When the Iranian authorities imported sniffing dogs to catch heroin smugglers, Razzaq and his friends filled hypodermic needles with some heroin dissolved in water and sprayed the liquid on cars at the bus station that would be continuing on to Tehran, Isfahan and Shiraz. “The dogs at the checkpoint went mad. They had to search 50 cars. They decided the dogs were defective and sent them back, and that saved us for a while.” Eventually, he said, they concocted a substance to conceal the heroin smell from the new pack of dogs.

After the fall of the Taliban, Razzaq moved back to Helmand, built a comfortable house and began supporting his extended family with his expanding trafficking business. Razzaq’s main challenge today is Iran. While the Americans have turned more or less a blind eye to the drug-trade spree of their warlord allies, Iran has steadily cranked up its drug war. (Some 3,000 Iranian lawmen have been killed in the last three decades battling traffickers.) To cross the desert borders, Razzaq moves in convoys of 18 S.U.V.’s. Some contain drugs. The rest are loaded with food supplies, antiaircraft guns, rocket launchers, antitank missiles and militiamen, often on loan from the Taliban. The fighters are Baluch from Iran and Afghanistan. The commanders are Afghans.

Razzaq’s run, as he described it, was a scene out of “Mad Max.” Three days were spent dodging and battling Iranian forces in the deserts around the earthquake-stricken city of Bam. Once they made it to Isfahan, however, in central Iran, they were home free. They released the militiamen, transferred the stuff to ordinary cars and drove to Tehran, where other smugglers picked up the drugs and passed them on to ethnic Turks in Tabriz. The Turks would bring them home, and from there they went to the markets of Europe.

Should he ever run into a problem in Afghanistan, he told me, “I simply make a phone call. And my voice is known to ministers, of course. They are in my network. Every network has a big man supporting them in the government.” The Interior Ministry’s director of counternarcotics in Kabul had told me the same thing. Anyway, if the smugglers have problems on the ground, they say, they just pay the Taliban to destroy the enemy commanders.

Razzaq has at times contemplated getting out of the smuggling trade, he said, but the easy money is too alluring. Depending on the market, he can earn from $1,500 to $7,500 a month. Most Afghans can’t make that in a year. Besides, he said, “all the governors are doing this, so why shouldn’t we?”

Losers Become Winners

In December 2001, not long after the Taliban were routed, I visited the Shah Wali Kot district, several hours’ drive on unpaved roads from Kandahar, a Mordor land of rock mountains shaped like sagging crescents and mud-baked houses melting into the dunes. The Taliban leaders had fled, mostly to Pakistan. Gul Agha Shirzai, formerly a local warlord and soon-to-be new governor, and his soldiers had swarmed into power while the Americans set up their operations base in Mullah Omar’s Xanadu-like residence. I was with a large group of Populzai, the clan of the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai.

We were in a big guest room with more than a dozen men gathered in a circle, all wearing the kind of turbans that look like gargantuan ice-cream swirls. The ones in black turban swirls were giggling, chatting and slapping one another on the back. The ones in white turban swirls were sulking, grumbling or mute. In this group, the miserable white turbans were Taliban men. They had just lost their pickup trucks, weapons, money, prestige and jobs, all of which had gone to the gleeful black turbans.

Today those miserable white turbans have taken to the mountains to fight. The gleeful black turbans are under siege. I saw one of the black turbans this summer, the Shah Wali Kot district leader, in the garden of the Kandahar governor’s palace. He was a mess. He chuckled loudly when I asked him how it was back in Shah Wali Kot. “Frankly, we are just defending ourselves from the Taliban,” he said. “Our head is on the pillow at night, but we do not sleep.”

That small division among the Populzai in Shah Wali Kot echoes the larger division of the Pashtun into two main branches: the Durrani and the Ghilzai. The Durrani, Karzai’s tribe, have dominated for the last two centuries in Afghanistan and regard themselves as the ruling elite. In the south, the Ghilzai were often treated as the nomadic, scrappy cousins. With the exception of Mullah Omar, who had been a poor Ghilzai farmer, the leaders of the Taliban tended to be Durrani. These days, the perception among the southern Ghilzai is that they are persecuted, that the jails are filled with their people, while the Durrani in the south received all the Japanese, U.S. and British contracts and jobs. From what I could gather during my weeks in Afghanistan, these perceptions were mostly true. But even if they were exaggerated, such perceptions, in an illiterate society, have a way of quickly morphing into reality.

Take Panjwai, a district just outside Kandahar, where hundreds of Taliban massed this summer, taking advantage of the changeover from American soldiers to a NATO force of Canadian troops. One afternoon I met a red-haired propagandist and writer for the Taliban in a Kandahar office building. With his slight lisp, chain-smoking habit and eclectic reading — French novelists and Arabic philosophers — he seemed more a tormented graduate student than the landless villager from Panjwai he was. Panjwai is a mishmash of tribes, and the Taliban were exploiting the grievances of the Nurzai, a tribe that has felt persecuted and unfairly targeted for poppy eradication. Traders in Kandahar, he said, were donating money to the Taliban. Landowners were paying them to fight off eradicators. The Taliban were paying poor, unemployed men to fight. And religious scholars were delivering the message that it was time for jihad because the Americans were no different from the Russians. Just a few weeks earlier, the Taliban went on a killing spree in Panjwai. They beheaded a tribal leader in his home, shot another in the bazaar and hanged a man near a shrine with a note tacked on his body: “SPY.”

The Taliban were feeling bold enough that one afternoon Mullah Ibrahim, a Taliban intelligence agent, dropped by my hotel for lunch. He was a Ghilzai, from Helmand, and told me he had tried to lead a normal life under the official amnesty program. Instead, he was locked up, beaten and so harassed by Helmandi intelligence and police officers that his tribal elders told him to leave for Pakistan and join the Taliban there. Then, about a year ago, he decided that he was tired of fighting and living as a fugitive and accepted a reconciliation offer from an Afghan general. Pakistani intelligence got wind of this and imprisoned him; upon his release, the Pakistanis gave him money and a motorbike and pressured him to go back to war. He is still tired of war, but the Pakistanis won’t let him live in peace, and now if he tries to reconcile with the Kabul government, he told me, the Taliban will kill him.

When fighting broke out on the main highway near Kandahar, I saw that the police had tied up a group of villagers — but the Taliban had all escaped. One of those village men, his hands bound behind his back, told me that he had peeped out from his house earlier that day and saw some 200 Taliban with new guns and rocket launchers. They wanted food and threatened him and other villagers. “But I am not afraid of them,” he said loudly. “I am only afraid of this government.” Why? “Look at what they do. They can’t get the Taliban, so they arrest us. We have no hope from them anymore. And when we call and tell them Taliban are here, no one comes.” As an engineer from Panjwai who had been an Afghan senator during the Communist era told me: “We are now like camels. In Islam, a camel can be slaughtered in two different ways.

“The Taliban are using rivalries and enmities between people to get soldiers, the same tactics as the mujahedeen used against the Russians,” the engineer continued. “Just like in Russian times they come and say, ‘We are defending the country from the infidels.’ They start asking for food. Then they ask the people for soldiers and say, ‘We will give you weapons.’ And that’s how it starts. And the emotions are rising in the people now. They are saying, ‘Kaffirs have invaded our land.”’

Qayum Karzai, the president’s older brother and a legislator from Kandahar, seemed utterly depressed when I met him. “For the last four years, the Taliban were saying that the Americans will leave here,” he said. “We were stupid and didn’t believe it. Now they think it’s a victory that the Americans left.”

With the Americans on their way out and the NATO force not yet in control, the Kandahar Police were left on the front line: underfinanced, underequipped, untrained — and often stoned. Which is perhaps what made them so brave. One afternoon I ran into a group who said their friends had just been killed when a Talib posing as a policeman served them poisoned tea. A shaggy-haired officer in a black tunic was standing by his pickup, freshly ripped up by a barrage of bullets, and staring at my feet. “I envy your shoes,” he said, looking back at his own torn rubber sandals. “I envy your Toyota,” he said and laughed. And then looking at my pen and notebook, he said, “I envy you can read and write.” It’s not too late, I offered feebly, but he tapped his temple and shook his head. “It doesn’t work anymore,” he said. “I smoke hash. I smoke opium. I’m drinking because we’re always thinking and nervous.” He was 35. He had been fighting for 20 years. Four of his friends had been killed in the fighting the other night. He had to support children, a wife and parents on a salary of about $100 a month. And, he said, “we haven’t been paid in four months.” No wonder, then, that the population complained that the police were all thieves.

At Kandahar’s hospital I met a 17-year-old policeman (who had been with the police since he was 14) tending to his wounded friend. He was in a jovial mood, amazed he wasn’t dead. He said they had been given an order to cut the Taliban’s escape route. Instead they were ambushed by the Taliban, ran out of bullets and had no phones to call for backup. “We ran away,” he said with a nervous giggle. “The Taliban chased us, shouting: ‘Hey, sons of Bush! Where are you going? We want to kill you.”’

Last month, NATO forces struck back around Panjwai with artillery and aerial bombardments, killing an estimated 500 Taliban fighters and destroying homes and schools. But unless NATO can stay for years, create a trustworthy police force and spend the millions necessary to regenerate the district, the Taliban will be back.

(continued in part 2.)


----------



## d-fi (24 Oct 2006)

(Part 2, continued)

Deciding to Fight

Inside the old city walls of Peshawar, Pakistan, a half-hour drive from the Afghan border, in a bazaar named after the storytellers who enthralled Central Asian gold and silk merchants with their tales of war and tragic love, sits the 17th-century Mohabat Khan Mosque. It is a place of cool, marble calm amid the dense market streets. Yousaf Qureshi is the prayer leader there and director of the Jamia Ashrafia, a Deobandi madrasa. He had recently announced a pledge by the jewelers’ association to pay $1 million to anyone who would kill a Danish cartoonist who caricatured the Prophet Muhammad. Qureshi himself offered $25,000 and a car. I found Qureshi seated on a cushion behind a low glass desk covered with papers and business cards — ambassadors, N.G.O. workers, Islamic scholars, mujahedeen commanders: he has conversed with them all. His office resembles an antiques shop, the walls displaying oversize prayer beads, knives inlaid with ivory and astrakhan caps. It was day’s end, and Qureshi was checking the proofs for his 51st book, called “The Benefits of Koran.”

Qureshi told me that he meets with Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf, about twice a year. Qureshi understands Musharraf’s predicament: “The heart of this government is with the Taliban. The tongue is not.” He didn’t claim total insider knowledge, but he said, “I think they want a weak government and want to support the Taliban without letting them win.” Why? “We are asking Musharraf, ‘What are you doing,’ and he says: ‘I’m moving in both ways. I want to support the Taliban, but I can’t afford to displease America. I am caught between the devil and the deep sea.”’

Not long ago, Qureshi said, he received three emissaries from Mullah Omar who wanted Qureshi to warn another religious leader to stop preaching against the Taliban. “I refused,” he said. Later Sheikh Yassin, one of the messengers, was arrested by the I.S.I., Pakistan’s military intelligence service. So why, I asked, does Qureshi say the I.S.I. is supporting the Taliban? “That is the double policy of the government,” he replied. Even in the 1990’s, he said, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was supporting the official Afghan government of Burhanuddin Rabbani while the I.S.I. was supporting his opponent, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, as he rained thousands of rockets upon Rabbani’s government and the citizens of Kabul. Qureshi told me that if he and local traders didn’t want Al Qaeda or the Taliban to flourish, then they wouldn’t. “We are supporting them to give the Americans a tough time,” he said. “Leave Afghanistan, and the Taliban and foreign fighters will not give Karzai problems. All the administrators of madrasas know what our students are doing, but we won’t tell them not to fight in Afghanistan.”

The new Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are of three basic types. There are the old war-addicted jihadis who were left out of the 2001 Bonn conference, which determined the postwar shape of Afghan politics and the carve-up of the country. There are the “second generation” Afghan refugees: poor, educated in Pakistan’s madrasas and easily recruited by their elders. And then there are the young men who had jobs and prestige in the former Taliban regime and were unable to find a place for themselves in the new Afghanistan.

Coincidentally, there are also now three fronts. One is led by Mullah Omar’s council in Quetta. The second is led by Jalaluddin Haqqani, a hero of the jihad against the Soviets who joined the Taliban. Although well into his 80’s, he orchestrates insurgent attacks through his sons in Paktia, Khost and Paktika, the Afghan provinces close to Waziristan, where he is based. Finally, there is Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the former leader of Hezb-i-Islami, the anti-Soviet fighters entrusted with the most money and arms by the U.S. and Pakistan. He had opposed the Taliban, living in uneasy exile in Iran until the U.S. persuaded Tehran to boot him out; he sneaked into the mountainous eastern borderlands. Since the early days of Karzai’s government, he has promised to organize Mullah Omar’s followers with his educated cadres and finance their jihad against Karzai and the American invaders. Old competitors are coming together in much the way the mujahedeen factions cooperated to fight the Russians. Hekmatyar adds a lethal ingredient to this stew: his ties and his followers extend all through Afghanistan, including the north and the west, where he is exploiting factional grievances that have nothing to do with the Pashtun discontent in the south.

An Afghan I met outside Peshawar — for his safety he asked me not to use his full name — was typical of the 20-something Talibs who had flourished under the Taliban regime. He was from Day Chopan, a mountainous region in Zabul Province, northeast of Kandahar. When the Northern Alliance and the Americans took Afghanistan, he escaped through the hills on an old smuggling route to the North-West Frontier Province.

It was familiar terrain. A.’s father had been a religious teacher who studied in Sami ul-Haq’s famous Haqqaniya madrasa near the Khyber Pass and preached jihad for Harakat, one of the southern mujahedeen parties whose members filled Mullah Omar’s ranks. Those old ties still bind and have provided a network for recruiting. A. grew up in madrasas in the tribal Pashtun lands of Waziristan, where he learned to fire guns as a child in the American-financed mujahedeen camps. As a teenage religious student in Wana, the capital of South Waziristan, he would go door to door collecting bread for his fellow Talibs. Behind one of those doors, he saw a girl and fell in love. When his father wouldn’t let him marry the girl, he threatened to go fight in Afghanistan. His father would not relent, and A. signed up at the local Taliban office in Peshawar. “We got good food, free service, everything was Islamic,” he told me. “It was the best life, rather than staying in that poor madrasa.” His father soon did relent, and A. became engaged, but he was only 15 and had no money. So he went back to the Taliban and was soon working beside the deputy defense minister. “Of course, then there were bags of money,” he said.

A., now 28, was living in an Afghan refugee village that used to belong to Hekmatyar’s group. Weak with malaria, he was nevertheless plump and jovial, even funny at times. Only when the Pakistani intelligence services came up did his already sallow hues pale to old bone.

After fleeing the American bombardment in 2001, he told me, the Taliban arrived in Pakistan tattered, dispersed and demoralized. But in the months after the collapse, senior Taliban leaders told their comrades to stay at home, keep in touch and wait for the call. Some Taliban told me that they actually waited to see if there was a chance to work with Karzai’s government.

“Our emir,” as A. referred to Mullah Omar, slowly contacted the commanders and told them to find out who was dead and who was alive. Those commanders appointed group commanders to collect the underlings like A. Weapons stashed away in Afghanistan’s mountains were excavated. Funds were raised through the wide and varied Islamic network — Karachi businessmen, Peshawar goldsmiths, Saudi oil men, Kuwaiti traders and jihadi sympathizers within the Pakistani military and intelligence ranks.

Mullah Omar named a 10-man leadership council, A. explained. Smaller councils were created for every province and district. Most of this was done from the safety of Pakistan, and in 2003 Mullah Omar dispatched Mullah Dadullah to the madrasas of Baluchistan and Karachi to gather the dispersed Talibs and find fresh recruits. Pakistani authorities were reportedly seen with him. Still, neither Musharraf nor his military men in Baluchistan did anything to arrest him.

It was a perfect job for Dadullah, whose reputation for bravery was matched by his savagery and his many war wounds, collected in more than 25 years of fighting. In 1998, his fighters slaughtered hundreds of Hazaras (Shiites of Mongol descent) in Bamiyan Province, an act so brutal it was even too much for Mullah Omar, who had him disarmed at the time. Dadullah’s very savagery, filmed and now often circulated on videotape, coupled with his promotional flair, were just the ingredients Omar needed to put the Taliban back on the map.

Today, Quetta has assumed the character of Peshawar in the 1980’s, a suspicious place of spies and counterspies and double agents. It is not just the hundreds of men in typical Afghan Pashtun clothing — the roughly wound turbans, dark shalwar kameez, eyes inked with kohl — who squat on Thursday afternoons outside the Kandahari mosque in the center of town, comparing notes on the latest fighting in Helmand or the best religious teachers. Rather, as I wandered the narrow alleyways of the Afghan neighborhoods, my local guides would say, “That’s where Mullah Dadullah was living” or “That’s where Mullah Amir Khan Haqqani is living.” (Haqqani is the Taliban’s governor in exile for Zabul Province.) Mullah Dadullah is now a folk hero for young Talibs like A. And all the Taliban I met told me that every time Dadullah gives another interview or appears on the battlefield, it serves as an instant injection of inspiration.

By 2004, A. said, he was meeting a lot of Arabs — Saudis, Iraqis, Palestinians — who taught the Afghans about I.E.D.’s (improvised explosive devices) and suicide bombings. “They taught us how to put explosives in plastic,” he told me. “They taught us wiring and triggers. The Arabs are the best instructors in that.” But now the Afghans are doing fine on their own. Pakistani jihadis in Afghanistan received their training, they told me, from Pakistani officers in Kashmir.

The southerners have also forged ties with the Pakistani Taliban in Waziristan. There is a free flow of arms and men between Waziristan and the Afghan provinces across the border. According to A., even Uzbeks from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan have joined some of the fighters now in A.’s home mountains in Day Chopan.

It was disheartening to hear A. describe his first encounter with Americans, who were trying to set up a base in a remote region of Zabul. Though they were building a road where no roads had gone before, he could perceive that asphalt only as a means for the Americans to transport their armored vehicles and occupy Muslim lands. A friend of his joined us as we were talking. He had just arrived in Pakistan from the Day Chopan region and said that the Americans were like a cyclone of evil, stealing their almonds and violating their Pashtunwali (the Pashtun tribal laws). In this instance, he meant the law by which even a cousin will not enter your house without knocking first.

A. is now a media man in Pakistan, coordinating the editing of films for discs, censoring them in case there are commanders who don’t want their faces seen and distributing them. He proudly offered me the latest disc of Mullah Dadullah beheading some “spies for the Americans.” He said he had sold 25,000 CD’s about the fighting in Waziristan.

He was full of contradictions. He said that if he didn’t have a house in Day Chopan, he would never spend a single night there because there was no education, no electricity, no power, nothing, just a heap of stones. Yet he did not want America to change all that. “We don’t like progress by Americans,” he declared. “We don’t like roads by Americans. We would rather walk on tired feet as long as we are walking in an Islamic state.”

Was it all just bravado speaking? Was an opportunity to build bridges to young men like A. somehow lost or just neglected? It was hard to tell. But when the I.S.I. subject came up again, his tone changed. “They are snakes,” he told me. He said that they were trying to create a new, obedient leader and oust the independent-minded Mullah Omar, and for that, the real Taliban hated them. Then he said: “I told you that we burn schools because they’re teaching Christianity, but actually most of the Taliban don’t like this burning of schools or destroying roads and bridges, because the Taliban, too, could use them. Those acts were being done under I.S.I. orders. They don’t want progress in Afghanistan.” An Indian engineer was beheaded in Zabul in April, he said, and that was also ordered by Pakistan, which, from fear of the influence of its enemy, India, was encouraging attacks on Indian companies. “People are not telling the story, because no one can trust anyone, and if I.S.I. knows I told you,” he said, he would be dead.

Pakistan’s Assets

There are many theories for why Pakistan might have wanted to help the Taliban reconstitute themselves. Afghan-Pakistani relations have always been fraught. One among the many disputes has to do with the Durand Line, the boundary drawn up by the British in 1893 partly to divide the Pashtun tribes, who were constantly revolting against the British. The Afghan government has never recognized this line, which winds its way from the Hindu Kush mountains of North-West Frontier Province 1,500 miles down to the deserts of Baluchistan, as its border. Nor have the Pashtun tribes. The Pakistanis may hope to force Karzai to recognize the Durand line in exchange for stability.

Another theory is that Musharraf must appease the religious parties whom he needs to extend his power past the end of his term next year. Musharraf bought them off, gave them control of the North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan and let them use the Taliban. And finally, the Pakistanis see Afghanistan as their rightful client. They want an accommodating regime, not Karzai, whose main backers are the U.S. and India, Pakistan’s nemesis.

Pakistan’s well-established secular Pashtun nationalist political leaders remain distraught that their lands have again become sanctuaries for the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani religious parties, which, since elections in 2002, rule these provinces and are completing a Talibanization of the region. The secular leaders point to another layer in Pakistan’s games: keeping the tribal areas autonomous enables Pakistan’s intelligence services to ward off the gaze of Westerners and keep their jihadis safely tucked away.

One thing you notice if you visit the homes of retired generals in Pakistan is that they live in a lavish fashion typical of South America’s dictatorship-era military elite. They control most of the country’s economy and real estate, and like President Musharraf, himself a former general, they do not want to relinquish power.

Although there is a secularist strain in the Pakistani military, it has been aligned with religious hard-liners since the army’s inception in 1947. Many officers still see their duty as defending the Muslim world, but their raison d’être has been undermined by the fact that though Pakistan was founded as a refuge for South Asia’s Muslims, more Muslims today live in India. They seem to envy the jihadis’ clarity. The militants had no identity crises. According to Najim Sethi, a prominent Pakistani journalist, military officers often have “a degree of self-disgust for selling themselves” to the Americans, and they still bear a grudge against the United States for abandoning them after the Afghan jihad and, more recently, for sanctioning Pakistan over its nuclear program. The standard army phrase about the Americans was, he said, “They used us like a condom.”

Officers spoke to me as if they were simply translating the feelings of the jihadis for a tone-deaf audience, but they sounded more like ventriloquists. One retired colonel I spoke to was a relative of a Taliban leader from Waziristan, Abdullah Massoud, who had earned both sympathy and reverence for his time in Guantánamo Bay. Massoud was captured fighting the Americans and the Northern Alliance and spent two years there, claiming to be a simple Afghan Talib. Upon his release, he made it home to Waziristan and resumed his war against the U.S. With his long hair, his prosthetic limb and impassioned speeches, he quickly became a charismatic inspiration to Waziristan’s youth.

Since 2001, some of Waziristan’s tribes have refused to hand over Qaeda members living among them. Under intense American pressure, Pakistan agreed for the first time in its history to invade the tribal areas. Hundreds of civilians and soldiers were killed. American helicopters were seen in the region, as were American spies. The militants (with some army accomplices) retaliated with two assassination attempts against Musharraf late in 2003. He struck back, but as the civilian casualties mounted and the military began to balk at killing Pakistanis, Musharraf agreed to a deal in the spring of 2004 whereby the militants would give up their guests in return for cash. Pakistani officers and the militants hugged and shed tears during a public reconciliation. But the militants did not relinquish their Al Qaeda guests, and they took advantage of the amnesty to execute tribal elders they said had helped the Pakistani military. The tribal structure in Waziristan was devastated, and the Taliban took to the streets to declare the Islamic emirate of Waziristan. Since Musharraf signed a truce with the militants last month, attacks launched from Waziristan into Afghanistan, according to NATO, have risen by 300 percent.

“Muslim governments are not able to face the Americans,” the retired colonel from Waziristan said, explaining the mujahedeen mind-set. “If Muslim governments should stand up against duplicity and foreign hegemonic designs, and they don’t, who will? Someone has to stand up to defend the Muslim countries, and it’s this that gives the jihadis the courage and zeal to stand up to the worst atrocities. This is the core issue of the mujahedeen movement. You call it the war on terror. The mujahedeen call it jihad.” And so, essentially, did he.

One afternoon, in the midst of a monsoon, I sought out one of the founders of the pro-jihadi strategy, the retired general Mirza Aslam Beg. He lived in Rawalpindi, the military capital half an hour from Islamabad, in a brick and tile-roofed mansion with a basketball hoop, flowing greenery and Judy, his one-eyed cocker spaniel. The house was immaculate, with marble floors, rugs, fine china and porcelain on display behind glass and an amusing portrait of Aslam Beg as a young, Ray-Banned, pommaded officer. His mansion sits across the street from Musharraf’s.

Aslam Beg played a leading role in the military’s creation of “asymmetrical assets,” jargon for the jihadis who have long been used by the military as proxies in Kashmir and Afghanistan. He was chief of the army staff from 1988 to 1991, while the Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan was selling the country’s nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Beg held talks with the Iranians about exchanging Iranian oil for Pakistani nuclear skill.

Aslam Beg likes to remind visitors that he was one of a group of army officers trained by the C.I.A. in the 1950’s as a “stay-behind organization” that would melt into the population if ever the Soviet Union overran Pakistan. Those brigadiers and lieutenant colonels then trained and directed the Afghan jihadis.

In the 1980’s, “the C.I.A. set up the largest support and administrative bases in Mohmand agency, Waziristan and Baluchistan,” Aslam Beg told me. “These were the logistics bases for eight long years, and you can imagine the relations that developed. And then Chechens, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Saudis developed family relations with the local people.” The Taliban, he said, fell back after 2001 to these baselines. “In 2003, when the U.S. attacked Iraq, a whole new dimension was added to the conflict. The foreign mujahedeen who’d fought in Afghanistan started moving back to Afghanistan and Iraq.” And the old Afghan jihadi leaders stopped by the mansion of their mentor, Aslam Beg, to tell him they were planning to wage war against the American occupiers.

As the rain outside turned to hail, banging against the windows, Aslam Beg ate some English sandwiches that had been wheeled in by a servant. “As a believer,” he went on, “I’ll tell you how I understand it. In the Holy Book there’s an injunction that the believer must reach out to defend the tyrannized. The words of God are, ‘What restrains you from fighting for those helpless men, women and children who due to their weakness are being brutalized and are calling you to free them from atrocities being perpetuated on them.’ This is a direct message, and it may not impact the hearts and minds of all believers. Maybe one in 10,000 will leave their home and go to the conflicts where Muslims are engaged in liberation movements, such as Chechnya, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Kashmir. Now it’s a global deterrent force.”

The Authentic Jihad

The old city of Lahore, with its broad boulevards and banyan-tree canopies, remains the cultural and intellectual heart of Pakistan. It is home to a small elite of journalists, editors, authors, painters, artists and businessmen. Najam Sethi, editor in chief of The Friday Times, and his wife, Jugnu Mohsin, the publisher, are popular fixtures among this crowd. Like so many of Pakistan’s intellectuals, they have had their share of run-ins with government security agents. For pushing the bounds of press freedom, Sethi was dragged from his bedroom during Nawaz Sharif’s reign, beaten, gagged and detained without charge. Musharraf, in his new autobiography, claims that Nawaz Sharif wanted him to court-martial Sethi for treason, an act that seemed ludicrous to him, and he refused.

I met him one afternoon at the newspaper’s offices as he was preparing his weekly editorial. He is a tall, affable man with smiling eyes and large glasses. And he got right down to business, providing an analysis of why Pakistan had decided to bring its “assets” — by which he meant the Taliban and Kashmiri jihadis — off the shelf.

In the days following 9/11, when Musharraf gathered together major editors to tell them that he had no choice but to withdraw his support for the Taliban, Sethi raised the touchy issue of the other jihadis. He said that if Musharraf was abandoning the Taliban, he would have to abandon the sectarian jihadis (fighting the Shiites), the Kashmir jihadis, all of the jihadis, because they were all trained in mind by the same religious leaders and in body by the same Pakistani forces.

In January 2002, Musharraf gave an unusually long televised speech to the nation. He reminded the people that his campaign against extremism was initiated years before and not under American pressure. He vowed that Pakistan would no longer export jihadis to Kashmir, that he was again placing a ban on several jihadi organizations, that camps would be closed and that while the madrasas were mostly educating the poor, some were centers of extremist teaching and would be reformed. A month later, Musharraf was at the White House next to President Bush, who praised him for standing against terrorism.

Sethi characterized Pakistani authorities as believing that the U.S. in Iraq “will be a Vietnam.” He said: “Afghanistan will be neither here nor there. So we cannot wrap up our assets. We must protect them.” The I.S.I. realized it could help deliver Al Qaeda to the U.S. while keeping the Taliban and the jihadis on the back burner. At the same time, Musharraf’s moderate advisers were telling him that holding on to those assets would eventually boomerang. And soon enough, the assets began to come after Musharraf — while the people of Pakistan were turning against him for being pro-American. “So going after jihadis who were protecting the Taliban came to a halt,” Sethi said.

Meanwhile the landscape next door in Afghanistan was changing. The warlords were back in action. The drug economy was surging. By 2003 and 2004, Musharraf’s men were becoming hysterical about what they saw as a growing Indian presence in Afghanistan, particularly the Indian consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad, the Pashtun strongholds that Pakistan considered its own turf. Karzai was doing business with Indians and Americans and was no longer a Pashtun whom Pakistanis would want to do business with.

As Sethi spoke, I recalled a meeting I had with one of Kandahar’s prominent tribal leaders. He recounted a visit from a former Pakistani general who had been active in the I.S.I. The general invited Kandahar’s leaders to lunch and warned them not to let the Indians put a consulate in Kandahar and to remember who their real benefactors were. Today there is a consulate there, and Indian films and music are sweeping through the Pashtun lands. What is more, many Pakistanis believe India is backing the Baluch insurgency in Pakistan’s far south, clouding the prospects for the new, Chinese-built port in Gwadar. The port is Pakistan’s single largest investment in its economic future and has been attacked by Baluch rebels.

In many ways, Pakistani policy is already looking beyond both Karzai and the Americans; they believe it is prudent to imagine a future with neither. That future will be shaped by the past: the past with India, the past with the Soviet Union, the past with America. For Pakistan’s hard-liners, at least, the obvious choice was to take their assets off the shelf and restart the jihad.

A Difficult Choice

On the wall outside the Eid Ga madrasa, in Kuchlak, a parched town near Quetta, Afghan students and teachers were debating the merits of jihad. One boy had just fled an American assault on Day Chopan in Zabul Province. He had never been to Pakistan before. He was frenzied, in shock. As a student from Kandahar led the others in dusk prayer, a young boy whispered to me, “I like America.” They were hardly a unified group. One young Helmandi told me, “We want our traditions of Islam and Sharia, not your democracy,” while another argued for peace. Then the Helmandi asked, with genuine confusion: “Why are Muslims being tortured everywhere in the world, and no one is there to stand up for them? But if you touch one Westerner, the sky is on your head?”

Most madrasas in Pakistan are run by the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, the religious-party alliance that has joined with Musharraf to keep the popular parties of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif from regaining power. The J.U.I. madrasas usually endorse jihad, although even here I met madrasa students who were against the war. They subscribed to a vision of jihad as a struggle for self-improvement and the improvement of society. Mawlawi Mohammadin, a cleric from Helmand, went so far as to tell me that these are the true roots of jihad, though he confessed that his is a lonely voice. He was afraid of everyone — Taliban, Pakistani intelligence, even his pupils. “If we start openly supporting Karzai, we could be killed by our own students,” he told me with nervous laughter. Only a month earlier, a Taliban official from Helmand who had reconciled with Karzai’s government was gunned down by assassins on a motorbike in Quetta.

Mohammadin said that it is now open season for jihad in Afghanistan under J.U.I. guidance. Government ministers were even attending funerals to praise Pakistani Pashtuns who had died fighting in Kandahar. He estimates that there are some 10,000 Taliban fighters in Baluchistan. Despite the intimidation, he says he feels that his mission is to steer his students away from war.

One of these was Mohamed Nader, who had just attended a cousin’s funeral and was wondering what it all meant. His cousin’s family was poor, and without their knowledge, he had gone to earn money first by harvesting poppies in Helmand and then by fighting for the Taliban. Finally he was killed. Among the biggest problems, Nader told me, was that the cohesion of the Afghan family has been shredded by decades of poverty and refugee life in Pakistan. In a typically strong Afghan family, young adults obey their parents, even asking for permission to go fight. But here, boys just run off.

Rahmatullah was one of those who had run off and returned. He was skinny and disheveled, having just faced heavy fighting in Kandahar. Though an Afghan, he had grown up in Baluchistan, near the border, in an area where he said 200 fighters were now living. The mullah at his madrasa told all the students that it was time for jihad. And the I.S.I. was paying cash. But his father was old and against the war; he pleaded with him to abandon fighting. So he sent Rahmatullah to his friend Mohammadin, hoping he might open another path for his son. Rahmatullah told me that he wasn’t sure yet which mullah he would listen to.

(Next week, Part 2: How U.S. and NATO forces have been battling the Taliban and fighting for hearts and minds.)


----------



## warspite (25 Oct 2006)

d-fi said:
			
		

> It is quite long so make sure you have a coffee going before you start.


You don't say.


----------



## Comdessert (25 Oct 2006)

Hey,

That was very informative. A little depressing though - the situation [edit: seems to be getting harder and harder to solve]  I'm really looking forward to Part 2 of that article. 

- CD


----------



## Stirling N6123 (25 Oct 2006)

First strike policy of hit them first before they hit us....is it really working? Or are we just poking a stick at a sleeping giant that could wake, and bite us in the bum??


----------



## armyvern (25 Oct 2006)

Apollo13 said:
			
		

> First strike policy of hit them first before they hit us....is it really working? Or are we just poking a stick at a sleeping giant that could wake, and bite us in the bum??


Interesting take. I'm seem to recall Al Qaida striking first on Sept 11th, followed by the Taliban's refusal to clean up their own backyard.


----------



## McG (25 Oct 2006)

Apollo13 said:
			
		

> First strike policy of hit them first before they hit us....is it really working? Or are we just poking a stick at a sleeping giant that could wake, and bite us in the bum??


What are you talking about?


----------



## paracowboy (25 Oct 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> Apollo13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


truly. That makes absolutely no sense. We didn't hit them first, we got hit. We don't go picking fights over there, we respond. Canadian troops don't engage until engaged. They shoot in self-defence, or defence of others.

If Timmie laid down his arms, swore off violence, and entered the democratic process, there wouldn't be any violence in Afghanistan. "Don't start none, won't be none, Dawg. Word."


----------



## McG (25 Oct 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Canadian troops don't engage until engaged.


We are a little more proactive than that, but this is certainly fitting:





			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> "Don't start none, won't be none, Dawg. Word."


----------



## paracowboy (25 Oct 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> We are a little more proactive than that, but this is certainly fitting:


Okay, if ya wanna be all literal about it. I'm bein' down-home and folksy. Point being, if Timmie wasn't trying to blow shit up, murder civilians, burn down schools and hospitals, etc, etc...we wouldn't be going after him. We don't hunt down people in Canada, let alone foreign lands, if they cause no harm.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (26 Oct 2006)

Not even the NRA is going to argue that half a dozen men with assault rifles, a light machine gun, and a pair of RPG are just peacefully out walking their goat.  We do not engage civilians going about their daily business, but only those of manifestly hostile intent, who we do not give an even break.  And if a man points a 25mm cannon at you and demands that you halt, driving full speed  towards him is considered hostile as well as stupid.  Afghans who are just trying to live their lives have nothing to fear from Canadian troops, and much to gain from our presence.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Oct 2006)

Why we may yet loose (and not in the field):

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2006/10/losing-afghanistan.html



> 27 October 2006
> *Losing Afghanistan *
> 
> As a supporter of the NATO and ISAF mission in Afghanistan, and as a parent of a Canadian Armed Forces soldier, it pains me to give my Afghanistan prediction. The Afghan mission will fail.
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (27 Oct 2006)

As an aside, this conflict started well before the 9/11 attacks, so I'd caution those who stake their argument to who did what in late 2001.  World War II didn't begin with Pearl Harbour.....


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As an aside, this conflict started well before the 9/11 attacks, so I'd caution those who stake their argument to who did what in late 2001.  World War II didn't begin with Pearl Harbour.....



http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

A Haplogroup is a chunk of genetic material.  Racial, Tribal, Clan theory would suppose that all one race would be of all one Haplotype as in the case of the maternal DNA (mtDNA) of the Eskimo/Inuit (designated as ES).  Or at least of predominantly one type.  There are are number of examples of that.

Nation-State theory would suggest that one set of borders should belong to one people with one colour of Haplotypes.

However, if you look in the neighbourhood of Afghanistan and check out the Hezaras (HZ), Uzbeks (UZ), Persians (PE), Kurds (KU), Turks (TU), Han Chinese (HA) then you will see what a pretty array of colours make up each "Ethnic" group, each "Race".  And they are all inter-related.

Interestingly enough there is not much to choose amongst the Scots, English, Irish and French either.

It takes a long time for that degree of intermixing to occur.

Whatever the underlying causes of dispute are it isn't a "natural" antipathy.  Nor is it about "natural" races.  As alway it is about people and individual choices and leadership and belief.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Oct 2006)

Huh?


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2006)

How far back do you want to go to find root causes?  

We make them up as we go along.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Oct 2006)

I was kind of hinting at the fact that 9/11 was the *second* time that these fellows hit the WTC.   :-*


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2006)

Oops, silly me. I missed the hint.


----------



## warspite (27 Oct 2006)

Just throwing this out there but perhaps if the government had some sort of propaganda campaign going on, sort of like what you see from WWII, it could help raise public support.


----------



## paracowboy (27 Oct 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> Just throwing this out there but perhaps if the government had some sort of propaganda campaign going on, sort of like what you see from WWII, it could help raise public support.


for that, you need the tacit support of the popular media. And the Taliban have that in Canada.


----------



## McG (27 Oct 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> ... perhaps if the government had some sort of propaganda campaign going on, sort of like what you see from WWII, it could help raise public support.


Don't need the propaganda campaign.  Just need to keep Canadians informed with the truth & not to let attention seekers toss-out lies without being corrected in the media.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (28 Oct 2006)

Does anyone else but me find it strange that everyone in the west is pointing to our troops and calling us invaders, but no one is pointing at the Pakistanis and Uzbek's, the Arabs and Chechen's, and the dimwits from our own shores who have signed up to carry the spear against us in Afghanistan?  Has it occurred to no one, save the aid workers and soldiers on the ground in happy Afghanistan that it is two sets of foreigners battling to determine the future of the Afghans?  Both sides can claim to have native Afghans fighting along side them.  Only our side is determined to leave the Afghans in charge when we leave; the Taliban was the poisoned offshoot of Pakistani fundamentalism, and ruled Afghanistan as a base for its continued efforts to destabilize those richer, stronger nations they viewed as the real prizes.


----------



## GAP (29 Oct 2006)

I add this to this thread on the debate, simply because if even 1/2 of this is occurring, it's gotta make the outcome tremendously difficult. Some of this stuff will really hurt the relations with the people in rural (and urban) areas. 

If we do not have a handle on what these contractors are doing and control over the quality of work, with basic building standards that will give some longevity to the projects, there is no long term. If someone built a community (and a lot of us have seen some pretty shoddy work, and that's WITH regulations) and the problems listed here arose...would we not complain?

It's a long read, somewhat biased, but look at the commentary of what the contractors are giving them. Maybe there should be a second look as to who is providing the services.



*How the West short-changed Afghanistan*
The Sunday Times October 29, 2006 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-2422241,00.html

We went to war to restore democracy and prosperity to Afghanistan, and spent billions on building new homes, hospitals and highways. But five years and thousands of lost lives later, everything is crumbling and the ferocious Taliban are back. Where did it all go wrong? Fariba Nawa reports on the troubles of her homeland 
  
The supposedly "posh" apartment where I am writing this is in one of dozens of buildings constructed in 2004 near downtown Kabul. It is part of the extensive reconstruction process taking place in Afghanistan in the midst of war. The landlord is a businessman who built the shiny five-storey apartment block with tinted windows as an investment in what then seemed an equally shiny new economy. Across the way are a mosque and a wedding hall, and the call to prayer competes with Afghan pop music. Lately, the roar of fighter jets has added another level to the noise, as security in Kabul declines to its worst state in five years. During the morning rush hour earlier this month, the windows shook from an explosion that injured more than a dozen police several blocks away.

There are three of us in the flat, including my fiancé and an American friend, and we pay £165 a month in rent, the going price in the city. But few locals could afford such luxury: a civil servant’s salary is £27 a month. And this is no Trump Tower. We’re not sure if our building is earthquake-safe, since no seismic standards are enforced in this construction boom. Afghanistan is to earthquakes as Florida is to hurricanes – we know that when the ground shakes, the walls crack and the doorframes shift. 

Our bathroom drains emit the stench of sewage; the pipes inside the walls leak, and the water seeps into the plaster. The lightest touch sends disintegrated wallboard cascading to the floor. There’s no insulation in the walls, and the gaps in our misshapen door and window frames allow icy winds to blow in. The building’s exterior was never finished with a primer or sealant, so when it rains, the moisture soaks through and beads on the interior walls. Metal beams supporting the ceiling of our living room are rusting, the rust is bleeding through the paint, and the paint is cracking. The list goes on.

I consider myself lucky. These flawed buildings and services are an inconvenience, but I could leave. Yet the shoddy reconstruction effort in Afghanistan since the Taliban were theoretically ousted has had far greater consequences for Afghans, and now, it seems, for westerners, who have footed the bill for these botched efforts. Amid the detritus of rubble and lost opportunities, the Taliban have returned.
More on link


----------



## McG (29 Oct 2006)

> Fraser hands reins to Dutch after Afghan mission
> Updated Sun. Oct. 29 2006 1:23 PM ET
> 
> Canadian Press
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061029/afghanistan_fraser_061029/20061029?hub=Canada


----------



## McG (6 Dec 2006)

No surprise here:



> *Cdns. ill-informed about Afghan mission: Fraser*
> Updated Tue. Dec. 5 2006 6:02 PM ET
> Canadian Press
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061205/cda_afghan_061205/20061205?hub=Canada


----------



## MG34 (8 Dec 2006)

Mithras said:
			
		

> These attacks are common place and it is probably having a desensitizing effect on the media and that _may_ be a good thing.
> 
> I hate to sound callous but I would rather have the media focus on other aspects of the mission than the constant IED attacks, such as the reconstruction efforts.  That doesn't mean I don't think deaths should be reported, but if there are no injuries or the injuries are minor I don't see the need for making a big deal out of it.



   Reconstruction has not really began on other than on a very limited scale,the security conditions have not yet been set to allow any projects of real value to start. The PRT has done some great work,but until the ACM forces have been pushed back and/or defeated there is little sense glorifying small scale projects that have limited effects on small areas close to Kandahar City. The PRT is over here are facilitating projects under CIDA and other organizations such as USAID,by providing contracts,chanelling of funds and what not ,while the Battlegroup sets security conditions (driving out or killing ACM forces). Neither actually conducts the reconstruction projects, (other than in a managing/overseeing position in the case of the PRT),that is not our mandate. We are here to support the legimate government of Afghanistan currently the ACM is the biggest threat to a free and democratic Afghanistan ,we are here to destroy them,not to build schools or dig wells,that is the realm of the NGOs.
  Reconstruction sounds good on the news and gives Joe Sixpack a warm and fuzzy feeling about having troops over here but there can be no real reconstruction unitl the ACM has been defeated, unfortunately that will mean the possibility of further Canadian and ISAF casulties wether they be "news worthy" or not. It is far too soon to shift the focus from kinetic operations to reconstruction.
Just my 2 cents sitting here on a mountain top.


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2006)

I'll offfer a somewhat contradictory opinion -- in that some reconstruction -- especially political/democratic information operations can be sucessfully as some (and not all) of the enemy can be swayed by finding out they can gain power via non violent measures as well.
  I agree that the enemy much be found fixed and destroyed -- but at the same time an effort must be made to minimize/neutralize the enemy via other means too.


----------



## MG34 (8 Dec 2006)

True,unfortunately the info/ops campaigns here have been ineffective or even more sadly absent.


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2006)

I know some people DFAIT/Cf should hire -- and a PSD team for them too  ;D

I agree wholesale on your point about major recontstruction.  It really needs to be understood that these missions are long term.  We (as Canadians) need to have the intestinal fortitude to see them thru and help bring Afghanistan into an area of peace and stability.  Failure to do that will result in a far greater number of Canadian (and other westerners) deaths -- in addition to being the morally correct action.


----------



## Mithras (8 Dec 2006)

MG34 said:
			
		

> Reconstruction has not really began on other than on a very limited scale,the security conditions have not yet been set to allow any projects of real value to start. The PRT has done some great work,but until the ACM forces have been pushed back and/or defeated there is little sense glorifying small scale projects that have limited effects on small areas close to Kandahar City. The PRT is over here are facilitating projects under CIDA and other organizations such as USAID,by providing contracts,chanelling of funds and what not ,while the Battlegroup sets security conditions (driving out or killing ACM forces). Neither actually conducts the reconstruction projects, (other than in a managing/overseeing position in the case of the PRT),that is not our mandate. We are here to support the legimate government of Afghanistan currently the ACM is the biggest threat to a free and democratic Afghanistan ,we are here to destroy them,not to build schools or dig wells,that is the realm of the NGOs.
> Reconstruction sounds good on the news and gives Joe Sixpack a warm and fuzzy feeling about having troops over here but there can be no real reconstruction unitl the ACM has been defeated, unfortunately that will mean the possibility of further Canadian and ISAF casulties wether they be "news worthy" or not. It is far too soon to shift the focus from kinetic operations to reconstruction.
> Just my 2 cents sitting here on a mountain top.



If I came across as ignorant that wasn't my intention.  "But" the Canadian government is going to need to find good news stories for our media in Afghanistan to keep Joe Sixpack all warm and fuzzy about this mission.  At the moment it seems most of the more vocal Canadian citizens do not have the intestinal fortitude to see a complex, dirty mission through to the end so you are going to have to find something positive to show them, even if it is just a new well.

Stay safe.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Dec 2006)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Canadian government analysis suggests rebuilding Afghanistan a tough slog*
Jeff Esau, Canadian Press, 16 Dec 06
Article Link

OTTAWA (CP) - Afghanistan's financial infrastructure is "primitive" and its recent economic growth "will be difficult to sustain," says a blunt assessment of the country's future by senior Canadian government officials.

Afghanistan is "seriously hampered" by security problems, endemic corruption, skilled labour shortages, limited access to finances, land tenure problems, the strain of returning refugees and "the generally weak rule of law," says the Sept. 5 analysis prepared by the Privy Council Office.

The office, the co-ordinating body for cabinet and the prime minister's office, released the seven-page document after a request under the Access to Information Act.

Its bleak forecast, delivered almost two weeks before a visit to Canada by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, appears at odds with recent claims by other Canadian officials that progress has been significant and steady.

The heavily censored report, The Future of Afghanistan: The Next Five Years, was written by PCO's intelligence assessment co-ordinating committee and widely distributed within government.

Based on "diplomatic and intelligence sources from Canada and allied countries," the report says some progress has been achieved since the U.S.-led victory over the Taliban in November 2001, particularly in children's schooling and improved access to basic health care.

But the vast majority of the population still struggles for the "bare essentials of survival," just as they did in the days of the Taliban.

The economy has benefited from the influx of foreign aid, which is driving a reconstruction boom, but is far from being self-sustaining.

Substantial budget subsidies and continued foreign financing will be required for many more years to help with trade and current account deficits, says the report.

The country's economy is heavily dependent on the drug trade, and although most poppy production is located in the southern provinces, revenue from drug production and shipment is important outside these Taliban-controlled areas.

The authors praise Afghanistan's new constitution and the direct election of the president, and say the elected legislature "has been surprisingly active and effective" since it was formed a year ago.

But the committee's stark economic assessment will likely stir debate, as the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois question whether the Canadian mission is properly focussed and how much progress has really been made since Canadian troops were deployed to Afghanistan in 2002, and to the volatile Kandahar region last year.

Bob Bergen, of the University of Calgary's Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, says the committee's report is a "very good assessment because it lays out in very stark terms the challenges that NATO faces" in both military and economic spheres.

The Afghan economy is "a step back to the seventeenth century."

The Privy Council assessment is more in line with the "very realistic" briefings of joint parliamentary committees than with some of the government's public statements, Bergen said in an interview.

"The threat posed by the narco-economy to the efforts to rebuild is so overwhelming that without doing something about that economy first, the Afghani government could be completely and utterly overrun by the Taliban."

The key to preventing that, he says, is NATO adopting a military approach "even more robust" than it has to date.

Bergen said UN statistics he has analyzed indicate the drug trade represents 52 per cent of the country's $5.2-billion economy, while the Afghan government's revenue is only 5.2 per cent.

The Privy Council committee produced at least one earlier report on Afghanistan last December, The Afghan Economy: Is there one?

That study slammed non-governmental agencies for their "squandering of aid money" and said "the rehabilitation efforts of disparate aid groups, agencies and nations often overlap, conflict, or are at worst, fratricidal."

Bergen said the aid money the Canadian government has earmarked for Afghanistan "is probably not getting through in a way the military commanders on the ground would like to see it."

Aid money should be channeled through coalition military forces, he said.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (18 Dec 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Aid money should be channeled through coalition military forces, he said.



I could see much stink and hollering at that comment, despite it making sense.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (18 Dec 2006)

In the rebuilding operations in Afghanistan we are in the "building the tools to make the tools stage".  We cannot simply hand over control to the civilian infrastructure, and plug in our add on contributions, as there really isn't an infrastructure there, and hasn't been in living memory.  We must supply the security, and leadership in the rebuilding efforts, so that the Afghans will have time to build something that will supply commerce, government, and security for the Afghan people.  It has to come from the military because no one else can provide it in defiance of the Taliban, no one else can make promises that can not be swayed by Taliban threats.  The civilian aid agencies have a lot that they can do, but they are constrained to work within the existing structures, and that leaves the aid given subject to local limitations, corruption and outright theft unless a credible and incorruptible outside force (like the CF) is present to make sure that what is given gets used by the intended recipient, for the intended purpose. 
    We are not stabilizing an essentially functional nation that just needs a little help, we are dealing with a nation that has been smashed back to the stone age and totally coopted by criminals and fanatics for so long they have forgotten any other way.  Rebuilding from the ground up will take time, and progress will be slow.  We cannot fix it and be home by Christmas, the boys and girls will be there for a few more tours, but if they don't b#tch about it, then the politicians can sit on their padded little benches and suck it up for a change.


----------



## Jammer (18 Dec 2006)

If I might throw my bit in here.
Having been at the PRToff and on for the last four months (I'm home on HLTA). I beleive I can offer some statments of fact and dispense with conjecture.

First, DFAIT, USAID, ICRC and any other NGO organizations CANNOT and WILL NOT travel out side of the confines of thier compounds or the environs of Kandahar city without ANY sort of protection. Some NGOs have taken the steps to hire private guards just to get them back and forth to the various places they have to go to just get basic supplies, let alone do any "reconstruction" work.

Second, Countries that have pleged millions of dollars to "rebuild Afghanistan" are now attaching caveats to their donations even though they were made in the days following Sept 11th (our staunch European Allies no less...)

Third, The "Taliban" or whoever you want to call them (we call them ACM- anti coalition militia), will continue to do thier best to disrupt by any means they have what ever work has or is being done by the Canadian PRT, who I might say are the only ones in ALL of Kandahar province going out on a regular basis doing lots with nothing.

Should we be there? Good question

Are we there? Yes!

What are we doing there? Come over and see!


----------



## Pikepusher (18 Dec 2006)

Jammer, 

thanks for a touch of realism in a whole bunch of idle speculation.

I would like to follow up your three Q&As with a fourth question: What can we over here do to help you over there?


----------



## fixerdave (18 Dec 2006)

I would like to add two separate points in favour of the current Canadian Afghan mission:

1) We are currently rebuilding the Canadian military.  Imagine the disaster if we were trying to do this during peacetime.  Politicians would be haggling forever over their piece of the billions that are being spent.  Pork-belly procurement would rule and most of the money would be wasted, at least from a military perspective.  When soldiers lives are on the line, most politicians will avoid the more blatant "my riding first" shenanigans that go on during peacetime military spending.  Combat not only makes better soldiers, it makes better politicians, mostly.  I know, it's a little cynical to list "an improved military procurement system" as a reason for going to war, but it's true.

2) The next time people say Canada should be concentrating on reconstruction instead of combat, offer to raise money for them to go to Kandahar and do some reconstruction themselves.  If they promise to go over - right now, promise them you will bust your a** canvasing to raise all the money they need for whatever reconstruction project they think is valid.  $10,000, $100,000, whatever it takes.  Of course, you might want to give them an option: they could raise their own money while waiting for NATO soldiers to secure the province.  You know, so they could do the reconstruction without getting their heads chopped off.



			
				Pikepusher said:
			
		

> Jammer,
> 
> I would like to follow up your three Q&As with a fourth question: What can we over here do to help you over there?



I've wondered that myself.  I like the idea of the Tim Hortons gift certificates but I can't see that doing much for the moral of someone freezing/frying in some FOB.  Anywhere outside of the Kandahar base, staring at a Timmy's gift certificate has gotta hurt.  Given the shipping difficulties, any other suggestions?

David...


----------



## midget-boyd91 (18 Dec 2006)

fixerdave said:
			
		

> I would like to add two separate points in favour of the current Canadian Afghan mission:
> 
> 1) We are currently rebuilding the Canadian military.  Imagine the disaster if we were trying to do this during peacetime.



I seem to recall replacing some pieces of equipment like the twin huey... that was in peacetime. and now the griffons we have that replaceed the 
T-hueys with arent suitable for deployments in Afghanistan. Now dont worry, yes I know it isn't hot and dry and high suitable. But I am talking about the armour situation.. or lack thereof.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2006)

WRT how we should conduct the mission, here is a breakdown of the numbers which suggests that the current strategy is the correct one and that pulling back to do more "reconstruction" is not only a dangerous fantasy, it is actually more dangerous for the troops on the ground as well:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2006/12/construction-more-deadly-than-combat.html



> *Construction more Deadly than Combat *
> 
> It sometimes takes time to expose falacious arguements. In the combat versus reconstruction (construction) debate, it has taken a bit of time to expose the truth, but we finally have some very compelling evidence that the Jack Layton/progressive mantra of "construct don't destruct" has a sinister side.
> 
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (4 Jan 2007)

CANADA, AFGHANISTAN
AND THE BLAME GAME
Sean M. Maloney

While Canadian troops are deployed in Afghanistan’s dangerous province of Kandahar,
the re-defined nature of the mission — from patrolling the capital to taking it to the
Taliban in the wild south — has left Canadians deeply dvided about the mission. Royal
Military College historian Sean Maloney, who has been on the ground four times in
Afghanistan since 2003, points out that Canada is engaged in war, not peacekeeping,
against an unrelenting foe and rigid ideology — radical Islamism. “The al-Qaeda
movement’s belief system, its ideology,” he writes, “is in no way compatible with ours.
We cannot negotiate with it. We have to keep it as far away as possible and
aggressively challenge it. That is what we are doing in Afghanistan.”

http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/dec06/maloney.pdf


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jan 2007)

Let's see if THIS gets the message out there.....

*Canadian Forces Operations in Afghanistan - Why Are we There?*
Backgrounder
Canadian Forces Operations in Afghanistan
Gov't of Canada Backgrounder BG–07.009, 5 Jan 07
Backgrounder

Why are we there?

Canada is in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government, along with 36 other nations, and as part of a UN-sanctioned mission to help build a stable, democratic, and self-sufficient society.

About 2500 members of the Canadian Forces (CF) are currently serving as part of Joint Task Force Afghanistan (JTF AFG). They play a key role in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission whose goal is to improve the security situation in Afghanistan and assist in rebuilding the country.

Canada’s continued engagement in Afghanistan helps create the conditions for longer-term reconstruction. All CF operations in Afghanistan are conducted with the consent and at the request of the Afghan government to:

    * Provide the people of Afghanistan with the hope for a brighter future by establishing the security necessary to promote development and an environment that is conducive to the improvement of Afghan life;
    * Conduct operations in support of Afghan National Security Forces;
    * Help strengthen and enhance Afghan Governance capacity;
    * Help extend the authority of the Government of Afghanistan in the South;
    * Facilitate the delivery of programs and projects that support the economic recovery and rehabilitation of Afghanistan; and
    * Assist in addressing humanitarian needs of Afghans by supporting Canadian governmental organizations and NGOs whose efforts meet Canada’s objectives.

The Afghan people are relying on the international community to help them rebuild their lives and their country after having suffered through decades of instability, oppression and insurgency.

By supporting the rebuilding of institutions such as independent courts, police and an army, Canada is on the ground laying the foundation for Afghans to govern themselves and secure a better future.

Canada has shown leadership by committing troops, resources, development and political effort to help the Afghan government secure a better future for its people. We have made a commitment to the Afghan people and we will stand by that commitment.

Helping Afghanistan continues the noble Canadian tradition of taking an active role to bring stability and lasting peace in a part of the world that has seen turmoil and upheaval.

Canada’s efforts in Afghanistan are guided by the Afghanistan Compact, which provides a five-year framework for coordinating the work of the Afghan government and its international partners by outlining specific outcomes, as well as the benchmarks and timelines for their delivery in the three areas of security, governance, and development.

Rebuilding a shattered Afghanistan is a slow and complex process in a country that is emerging from more than two decades of human rights abuses, terror, conflict, drought and poverty.

We are making progress – unthinkable only a few years ago – which is a testament to the will and fortitude of the Afghan people, as well as the commitment and engagement of the international community.

For example, a new Afghan constitution has restored the rule of law and respect for the human rights of every Afghan citizen, including those of women and children. Because of our efforts, the Afghan people now vote, women and girls have rights and children are going to school.

However, Canada is in perhaps the most troubled region of the country, where the challenges of establishing security and stability are more pointed than in other parts of Afghanistan. We are there because the job has to be done, if reconstruction and a better life for the people in the southern region are to be a reality.

The biggest threat to rebuilding is continued violence and threats from the Taliban and al-Qaeda whose principle mission is to disrupt and prohibit Afghan men, women and children from going about their daily lives.

Terrorism remains a threat to global peace and security. Afghanistan has been used as a base for terrorists in the past. In the interests of our collective security, Canada and its international partners share a responsibility to help ensure that terrorism cannot again take root in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is not, nor has it ever been a traditional peacekeeping mission. There are no ceasefire arrangements to enforce and no negotiated peace settlement to respect. Negotiation is not an option with groups such as the Taliban nor al-Qaeda who are not interested in the kind of peace that the Afghan people seek. Their tactics are terrorism not talks aimed at establishing a truce.

Our mission is one of nation building. Our forces are doing exactly the type of work that needs to be done in Afghanistan. Our soldiers are the best in the world for this kind of mission. They are well trained, well led and have the best equipment on the ground.

We know the success of our mission cannot be assured by military means alone. No fewer than 19 UN agencies are in Afghanistan working tirelessly to help the Afghan people and their national government build a democratic and secure society.

Canada has also deployed diplomats, development workers, civilian police, as well as experts in human rights, good governance, the rule of law and democracy building — all of whom come together in common endeavour in Afghanistan.

The CF commitment is an important aspect of the Government of Canada’s whole of Government approach to assisting Afghanistan. For more information on Canada’s commitment to Afghanistan visit the Canada-Afghanistan website.
The situation today

The CF contribution to Afghanistan consists of approximately 2,500 personnel from units across Canada and is referred to as Joint Task Force Afghanistan (JTF AFG). The CF efforts in Afghanistan are subdivided into three distinct missions that work in concert with each other and have the same overarching goal of improving the security situation in Afghanistan, and assisting in rebuilding the country. The three missions currently underway are:

    * Op ATHENA - The Canadian contribution to the UN-sanctioned and NATO led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) currently has 2,500 CF personnel committed to Op ATHENA.
    * Op ARCHER – Consists of embedded CF staff officers at the Combined Security Transition Command – Afghanistan (CSTC-A) in Kabul and a few liaison officers at Bagram Airfield supporting Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) as well as a small cadre of CF instructors involved in the training of the Afghan National Army (ANA) at the Canadian Afghan National Training Centre Detachment (CANTC Det) in Kabul. The current Canadian contribution to Op ARCHER consists of about 30 CF personnel.
    * Op ARGUS - The Strategic Advisory Team to the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan currently has 15 Canadians working in Kabul in support of Op ARGUS.

Operation ATHENA: The Canadian Forces contribution to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF): approximately 2,500 CF personnel

On July 31, 2006, CF personnel serving in Afghanistan were once again assigned to the UN-authorized, NATO led ISAF mission in Afghanistan when ISAF assumed command of the southern region of Afghanistan from the US-led Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF). This transition occurred as a result of the planned expansion of ISAF’s mission in Afghanistan.

From February to July 31, 2006, CF personnel had been operating in Afghanistan under OEF leadership following the consolidation of the majority of CF assets from Kabul, to Kandahar Airfield. CF personnel had previously served as part of ISAF from August 2003 to November 2005 in the Kabul area (Operation ATHENA 2003-2005).
Background

ISAF was originally authorized by the UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1386 on December 20, 2001, with a mandate to assist the Afghan Transitional Authority. UN support for ISAF has since been reaffirmed in subsequent Security Council Resolutions, most recently in UNSCR 1707 on September 12, 2006. Since its original mission of providing security in the Kabul area, ISAF has gradually expanded throughout the whole of Afghanistan.

ISAF’s responsibility is exerted via five Regional Commands (RCs):

    * Capital located in Kabul;
    * Northern located in Mazar-e Sharif;
    * Western in Herat;
    * Southern in Kandahar; and
    * Eastern in Bagram.

These in turn have Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) underneath them, five in the North, four in the West, four in the South and 12 in the East. There are no PRTs in RC Capital. Their role is to assist the local authorities in the reconstruction and maintenance of security in the area. More information on ISAF can be found on the ISAF website.

Overall, 2,500 CF personnel support the ISAF mission. CF personnel deployed as part of OP ATHENA comprise the following units (all figures approximate):

    * A Battle Group in Kandahar, primarily from 1st Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment (1RCR), which includes:

          o Soldiers from 1 RCR and 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry based out of CFB Petawawa and CFB Shilo, in Manitoba, respectively;
          o An engineer squadron from 2 Combat Engineer Regiment (2CER) in Petawawa;
          o An artillery battery from 2 Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (2RCHA) in Petawawa;
          o An armoured reconnaissance troop, from The Royal Canadian Dragoons (RCD) in Petawawa;
          o A Leopard tank squadron from the Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) in Edmonton, Alberta;
          o A Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Unit comprised primarily of personnel from 408 Tactical Helicopter Squadron based in Edmonton, AB, and 5e Régiment d'artillerie légère du Canada based in Valcartier, PQ.;
          o Operational Mentor Liaison Teams (OMLTs) from Land Forces Quebec Area (LFQA), partnering with Afghan National Army (ANA) Infantry Kandak Battalion and ANA Corps HQ;

    * 70 Health Service Support (HSS) personnel at the Multinational Medical Unit (MMU) at Kandahar Airfield comprised of personnel from 2 Field Ambulance and 1 Canadian Field Hospital in Petawawa, Ontario, and other Health Services units from across Canada;
    * About 30 CF members with the Multi-National Brigade (MNB) Headquarters assisting Dutch Major-General Ton van Loon in accomplishing his mission and exercising command and control over the MNB Region Command (South) in Afghanistan;
    * 300 CF members with the National Command Element (NCE) at Kandahar Airfield. Primarily composed of elements of 2 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group based in Petawawa, Ontario. The NCE also contains members from various units within the Land Force Central Area, as well as health services personnel from across Canada;
    * 300 CF members with the National Support Element (NSE) in Kandahar, primarily from 2 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group and 2 Service Battalion, also from Petawawa;
    * In Kabul, about 50 CF personnel at ISAF Headquarters, 15 personnel with a smaller NSE Detachment and 11 at the Canadian Embassy;
    * 250 CF members with the Theatre Support Element (TSE) in Southwest Asia.

The Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT)

Since August 2005, a Canadian PRT has operated in Kandahar City, where it will remain until February 2009. The PRT brings together elements from the Canadian Forces (CF), Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and civilian police led by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in an integrated Canadian effort known as the “All of Government” approach. Approximately 350 personnel are based at the PRT site at Camp Nathan Smith in Kandahar City.
The PRT helps reinforce the authority of the Afghan government in Kandahar Province, assisting in the stabilization and development of the region. It monitors security, promotes Afghan government policies and priorities with local authorities, and facilitates security sector reforms.
The PRT military component comprises personnel, drawn largely from Land Forces Central Area (LFCA) and 2 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group (2 CMBG) based in Petawawa, Ont as well as from Land Forces Quebec Area (LFQA). The PRT includes:

    * The PRT Commander’s Tactical Headquarters Group, which provides protection and mobility to the PRT Commander and his staff;
    * An Infantry company from 1st Battalion, Royal 22e Régiment protecting and escorting the PRT, providing a quick reaction force for Kandahar City, and performing defence and security tasks;
    * Military project managers (military engineers) enhancing the PRT’s capability to manage quick impact reconstruction and development projects;
    * A Civil-Military Cooperation Platoon from Land Force Central Area;
    * A Military Police Platoon from 2 CMBG in Petawawa;
    * Health and medical support from 1 Field Ambulance (1 Fd Amb);
    * Service and support elements drawn from across Canada; and
    * Other specialized elements from various CF units across Canada.

Operation ARCHER (Approximately 30 Personnel)

The Canadian contribution to the U.S. led Operation ENDURING FREEDOM in Afghanistan is known as Operation ARCHER.

Since the fall of the Taliban in December 2001, the International Community has been rebuilding Afghanistan’s infrastructure, institutions, government, and army. This effort involves more than just supplying weapons and equipment; Canada has contributed to the U.S. led effort to build a security infrastructure that includes operational forces, sustaining institutions, and the general staff and ministries to direct these organizations. The Combined Security Transition Command – Afghanistan (CSTC-A) (formerly the Office of Security Cooperation - Afghanistan) is currently re-forming and building both the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP). The Canadian Forces currently has Brigadier General Greg Young and 12 other Canadian officers with CSTC-A in Kabul.

The CF also contributes 15 personnel to act as instructors involved in the training of the Afghan National Army at the Canadian Afghan National Training Centre Detachment (C ANTC Det) in Kabul.
Operation ARGUS (15 Personnel)
Strategic Advisory Team – Afghanistan (SAT – A)

Since September 2005 the Canadian Forces has, on a bi-lateral basis, provided a team of strategic military planners to support the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in developing key national strategies and mechanisms for the effective implementation of those strategies. The team is called the Strategic Advisory Team - Afghanistan, or SAT-A.

The Strategic Advisory Team consists of 15 Canadian Forces members and civilian employees, augmented by a CIDA officer to advise on development issues. The team includes a small command and support element, two teams of strategic planners, a defence analyst and a strategic communications advisor. The composition, size and capabilities of the team are adjusted as necessary.

The Strategic Advisory Team, in consultation with the Canadian Ambassador, the Head of Aid and with a senior representative of the Afghan government, provides direct planning support to government ministries and working groups in the development and governance realms. To date, the team has worked extensively with the Afghanistan's National Development Strategy Working Group, Public Administration Reform, Civil Service Gender Equity Policy, and with the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development.

The teams are embedded in their partner Afghan Government ministries and agencies and work under Afghan leadership. The basic method of operation is that the team assists working level officials integrate the substantive ideas of the Afghan leadership and international experts into cohesive strategic frameworks. Working closely with the Ambassador, CIDA and the Afghan Government, SAT-A is an example of the "whole of government" concept at work so that Canada can maximize the value of its contribution. The planning team members bring a very wide range of training, education, experience, and military strategic planning skills to bear on the resolution of complex civil problems.

- 30 -


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jan 2007)

Too many words.  Not enough sound bytes.  Unfortunately, "No Blood for Oil" is a much more compelling argument than fact after fact laid out: we live in an ADD society and we have to cater to that.

Maybe "Nie Wieder Faschismus" (Fascism never again) is a better slogan as to why we are there.  That or a pic of OBL superimposed on a pic of a plane slamming into the World Trade Center.  Or a pic of that woman shot in the head by the Taliban for whatever crime she was alleged to have committed....


People are stupid.  Treat them as though they are stupid and you can get your message across.


----------



## Mike Baker (5 Jan 2007)

Hauptmann Scharlachrot said:
			
		

> People are stupid.  Treat them as though they are stupid and you can get your message across.


I never wanted to find out that I was stuped this way  :crybaby:  :kidding:


----------



## ArmyRick (5 Jan 2007)

I think too many people want to beleive there is a large conspiracy at work (Too many episodes of 24 I guess). Anyways, when most of these naive clowns get older and learn about "the real world" then maybe they will reflect back on their in fashion bash of anything right wing, pro military, pro harper, pro progression, etc, etc.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jan 2007)

Its a backgrounder. It is for the press. Take a look at some of the other backgrounders on things like the JSS, the Strat and Taclift, the medium trucks etc.  It lays out the details that the press seems to be perenially insufficiently briefed on.  (Even with the briefings it seems they still can't get things right).  This is putting on the record what the government told the press.  If the press now gets the facts wrong people like us, as well as the government, can now point to these and say "This is what the government said".

They also supply useful ammunition to counter sloganeering activists and the war rooms of other political parties.

Having said that - the government does need a bumper sticker on Afghanistan.  Generally three words although "Dear Lord, Please let there be another oil boom. I promise not to piss it all away again." was popular for a while.  As was "Let those eastern bastards freeze in the dark".  Those seem to be the upper limits of bumperstickerabilia.  ;D


----------



## McG (7 Jan 2007)

> 'Awful, evil mix' behind Afghan insurgency funding
> Updated Sun. Jan. 7 2007 6:19 PM ET
> Canadian Press
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070107/afghan_insurgency_070107/20070107?hub=Canada


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jan 2007)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, from a very recent (6 Jan 07) edition of the _Globe and Mail_ is a _summary_ of the situation in Afghanistan, as seen through a Canadian political lens, by the _Globe_’s Jeffrey Simpson:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070105.cosimp06/BNStory/National/home  





> A bad end looms over Canada's Afghan mission
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> ...



I do not normally pay much attention to Simpson when he strays out of his lane (Canadian domestic politics) and discusses foreign and defence matters.  But, this is, essentially, a rehash of Barnett Rubin’s Jan/Feb 2007 _Foreign Affairs_ article - http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070101faessay86105/barnett-r-rubin/saving-afghanistan.html as Simpson acknowledges.  _”Rubin is Director of Studies and a Senior Fellow at New York University's Center on International Cooperation and the author of _The Fragmentation of Afghanistan_. He served as an adviser to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General at the UN Talks on Afghanistan in Bonn in 2001.”_  Rubin is a credible source; his views, synopsized for a quick easy read by Canadian decision makers, matter and should be considered. 

More important: this summary was read and considered yesterday morning by an influential if often credulous audience – including Conservative Party caucus members.  Some points to note, I think are:

1.	*“Borders must be sealed to improve any … chance of success …”* This is a self evident truth, I believe, but much, much easier said than done because it must refer to more than just the Afghanistan/Pakistan border – Afghanistan also borders Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China.  All but China have porous borders with Afghanistan;

2.	*“…foreign fighters have implanted themselves in the area, supplanting tribal leaders, sometimes by violence. The foreign fighters have imported from Iraq the use of suicide bombings, car bombs and roadside explosive devices.”*  This also seems self-evident and reinforces the problem enunciated in 1, above;

3.	*“The enemies of stability are also recruiting in Pakistan's madrassas …”*  These Saudi funded ‘schools’ preach and teach a narrow form of Islam, to mainly destitute children, designed to create fundamentalists who will see _jihad_ and martyrdom as paths to a better existence (it could hardly get much worse).  This problem is bigger than Pakistan.  The rich Saudi _Wahabbis_, bankrolled and protected by the Saudi royal family, are one of the tangled roots of the radical Islamist movements.  They sponsor the _madrassas_;

4.	*“Pakistan's central government essentially gave up trying to control the tribal areas. The result has been a political vacuum into which the Taliban and other militants have moved … some elements of Pakistan's security forces support the Taliban …”*  This makes eradicating the _madrassas_ and sealing the border even more difficult;

5.	*“Police training in Afghanistan, supposedly the responsibility of Germany, is going badly.”*  Effective national, regional and, especially, local police is one of the keys to making Afghanistan governable.  If we cannot make Afghan governable by Afghans, for Afghans we will have failed.  Thanks, NATO/Germany;

6.	*“Poppy eradication, supposedly the responsibility of Britain, is going backward, with the United Nations reporting a record crop in 2006. The profits from the poppy trade help fuel the insurgency and augment corruption.”*  As Ruxted pointed out at - http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/35-More-than-a-hammer.html  - there needs to be a fresh look at how to take the profits from the opium poppy away from the bad guys without bankrupting poor farmers who cultivate poppies on arid land where little else can be grown for an honest profit; and

7.	*“Judicial training, supposedly the responsibility of Italy, is a joke.”*  This exacerbates the problem at 5, above.  Thanks NATO/Italy.

In addition, Simpson takes a shot at the military’s tooth-to-tail ratio, too.  That will not pass unnoticed and, it seems to me it highlights the less than adequate job that MND Gordon O’Connor has done in explaining not just the ‘why’ of Afghanistan but also the ‘who,’ ‘what,’ and ‘how’ of the mission.  A few reporters have tried to explain why it requires about two C3, medical and service support people to back-up every battle group soldier but they have not managed to convey either the criticality of solid C3 and logistical support or the universal nature of admin _tails_ in all allied armies.  Too bad; Simpson is likely to stir up controversy where none is warranted.

I just wish some politicians and members of the national _commentariat_ would take note of the final self evident truth expounded by Simpson: _*” These are factors over which Canada has minimal control.”*_  Our military has to fight and work within the constraints imposed by all the problems Rubin/Simpson enunciate; ditto our development workers, diplomats and officials and generals in Ottawa and their political masters, too.  The fact that we cannot exercise much ‘control’ for the situation in Afghanistan is not a good reason to pack up and come home before the job we can do is done.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Jan 2007)

That is kind of a smart switch in tactics, though.  Instead of trying to hammer home that Mr. Harper has an "unbalanced mission" and such, run with "it's everyone elses fault, and we shouldn't have to pay for their lack of help/success".  Paint our guys as the heroes/patsies, and then make the situation seem obvious that the troops need to be pulled, since they are getting jerked around by NATO.  God knows Canadians love to paint themselves as victims.  Then the NDP can come rushing in and say "see, that is what we were trying to tell you all along" and the Lieberals can say "whoa, they sure hung us out.  That isn't what we bought into".  
Games, but cunning moves just the same.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (8 Jan 2007)

Zipperhead, I think you're 100% right on that point.  To attain a goal politicians changes their message for different groups.  It isn't about saying the right message, it is about getting the right result.  I believe that the NDP and other anti-afghanistan-mission people truly believe in their objectives.  I see no reason why they wont grab at any loose thread and yank, hoping to unravel the tapestry that holds the mission together.  Frankly,  the fact that some NATO countries are 'seemingly' leaving us out to dry is a very good and powerfull point.  It shows precedence that other respectable countries don't think the mission is worth their lives,  so why do we,  and secondly it shows that we're doing more than our share so we can pull back with no discrace.  

I believe that we truly need to get Afghanistan up on its feet as a working country again.  If we fail to do so we'll be condemning generations of Afghans to more wars and oppressive regimes while condemning generations of westerners to terrorist attacks and other serious problems.  For far to long we ignored their plight,  choosing not to get involved.  Because we didn't want to get mired inside an "Arab" problem,  we simply ignored the signs of genuine trouble coming our way. It was only when we felt threatened (yes attacked) that we finally removed the Taliban from power.  Do we now allow them to regain power and threaten us all over again - and they will.


----------



## Spr.Earl (8 Jan 2007)

The debate is mute now,we are there now and have to stay through thick and thin and do what we are good at.


----------



## observor 69 (8 Jan 2007)

Most people, at least in this group, know the "why" the trouble is with the "how."  Is the cause noble and worthy, probably. Is Pakistan the new Cambodia, probably. Is the battle going to just sputter out due to a lack of commitment of personnel and resources by the the NATO members and the weary Bush administration, probably. 

And I wouldn't put my money on the public "always" being stupid, sometimes they show an amazing amount of common sense and insight.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Jan 2007)

Another take on Rubin's Afghanistan piece in _Foreign Affairs_--headline Jan. 6 in the Ottawa Citizen:

Afghan mission 'doomed to fail'
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=87414256-04d1-442f-a43b-03855cfc8da2&k=75000

The phrase in quotes appears nowhere, as the quotes suggest, in the _Foreign Affairs_ article and are the words of the reporter himself.   I thought it was standard journalistic practice to use quotes in a headline only when referring to *words other than those of the reporter*.

Indeed, a headline writer with a different agenda could have written this using a phrase that actually is in the article:

"Battle for Afghanistan 'is still ours to lose'"

But that would not suit the agenda of many of our journalists, who seem to be lusting for defeat.

The _Citizen_ may print a letter of mine on this Jan. 9.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Jan 2007)

Mark, the problem is, the majority of the public will not read Barnett's works, thus they take the 'quote' at face value...this isn't very professional of a journalist, IMO.  There is a difference between 'doomed to fail' and 'our's to lose'.  Shame on The Citizen!

G2G


----------



## North Star (12 Jan 2007)

Actually, the best argument about Afghanistan was by the PM, and didn't involve moral issues. UIf we fail in Afghanistan, we'll simply end up there again and again...


----------



## CForc3 (19 Jan 2007)

This is an article that all Canadians should read. Military or civilian.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jan 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Another take on Rubin's Afghanistan piece in _Foreign Affairs_--headline Jan. 6 in the Ottawa Citizen:
> 
> Afghan mission 'doomed to fail'
> http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=87414256-04d1-442f-a43b-03855cfc8da2&k=75000
> ...



Anyone care to guess how many editors who are writing headlines for such pieces read either the entire piece, or the source article it's based on?  Anyone?  Anyone? :

BTW, I take it your letter didn't make it since it's not posted??


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Jan 2007)

milnewstbay: Not published--they phoned and said were considering.

It's not just how much the headline writers read, it's what their agenda is (and that of some reporters).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jan 2007)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Document outlines Canada's military plans in Afghanistan*
CBC Online, 28 Jan 07
Article Link

The Canadian military effort in Afghanistan will be complete when Afghan security forces are established and the Afghan government gains full control of the area, says a new document from the military's chief of defence staff.  The document — authored by Gen. Rick Hillier and obtained recently by CBC News —stated that the military's job in Afghanistan is considered successful and completed:

    * when new Afghan security forces "are established" and "fully controlled" by the Afghan government.
    * when those forces are trained and can conduct their own "counter-insurgency operations."
    * when the forces can defend against foreign fighters and "effectively control borders."
    * and when "terrorist groups are denied sanctuary within Afghanistan."

The military plan is achievable, but not in the short term, said Rob Huebert, a military analyst at the University of Calgary's Centre for Military and Strategic Studies.

"The Taliban-al-Qaeda threat has not been entirely neutralized, and the big problem we have right now is the Pakistani border provides refuge," Huebert said. "Once that border gets sealed, then you can start dealing with the problem more effectively."

The military objectives also outline how the Canadian Forces will accomplish their goals using air and ground combat operations against al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other armed grounds within Afghanistan.

To date, Canada has yet to deploy any combat aircraft, but it has 2,500 Canadian soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan.

There are still many questions, said Denis Coderre, the Liberal defence critic, adding that if the government wants to meet its military goals, it will have to extend the mission.

"When you look at the end state of that paper, long term means exactly that," Coderre said.

The prime minister's office concurred with Coderre's comments, indicating success in Afghanistan will take time.

Thirty-six soldiers and one diplomat have been killed since their the deployment 14 months ago. 

Earlier this weekend, two more groups of soldiers left Canada for a six-month tour of duty in Afghanistan as part of a troop rotation that will see their counterparts in the country's war zone return home over the next two months.


----------



## rmacqueen (29 Jan 2007)

The news report CBC radio this morning stated the report was marked SECRET.  If this is true there is a big problem at NDHQ


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jan 2007)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> The news report CBC radio this morning stated the report was marked SECRET.  If this is true there is a big problem at NDHQ



True, but should we also worry about whether such obvious truths have to be marked SECRET?


----------



## GAP (29 Jan 2007)

It was marked Secret on the news last night, but obtained through the Freedom of Information Request system, so it must have been declassified for some reason.....maybe to get the word out why we are there?


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Jan 2007)

I thought that this morning as well when I heard the story.  Even though broadcast, if something's marked "SECRET" and that classification still applies, isn't it criminal to air it?  I think even the cbc wouldn't do such a thing, ergo, I believe that parts of this document were declassified, or vetted for public consumption....


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jan 2007)

Based on my limited experience on the sending end of some federal documents through Access to Information, if it was requested through ATIP, it would certainly have had security, proprietary, third party or advice to Cabinet (I oversimplify the categories) information redacted, even if the SECRET stamp was still visible.  If that's the case, I believe whatever's left is OK for public consumption.

Also, don't forget that what can also happen is that a HUGE amount of paperwork from an ATIP request is sent out, and the reporter only writes about one document, or one paragraph in one document.  An example:  an ATIP request for information on a domestic CF operation contained something like 700 documents (including copies of duty logs and ROWPU water testing results on FMB pages - remember, EVERYTHING is a "record") on a CD ROM.  The MSM story out of that talked about how there were concerns in (maybe) less than a dozen e-mails about the mission being seen as a public relations exercise.   Don't know if the volume compares on this story, but thought you'd be interested in seeing how it sometimes works.  It's interesting that MSM talk about "documents obtained", but (in my experience) NEVER post the documents so the consumer can draw their own conclusions.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (29 Jan 2007)

Sounds like part of a campaign plan to me - and this is a bad thing?


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jan 2007)

Hey, I'm all for easy-to-understand platforms from ANYONE.....

But is clarity too much to expect from government writing?


----------



## GAP (30 Jan 2007)

Extended Afghan mission planned, critics say
Opposition cites plans as proof troops will stay until 2011
GLORIA GALLOWAY 
Article Link

OTTAWA -- Opposition MPs say documents generated by the Department of National Defence prove that the government intends to keep Canadian troops in Afghanistan long after the current commitment to the NATO-led force ends in 2009.

A communications plan drawn up by General Rick Hillier, the Chief of the Defence Staff, in May of last year outlines Canada's "five-year information strategy" for Afghanistan. 

The opposition charges that the duration of the strategy indicates an intent to maintain a Canadian presence in the war-torn country until 2011.

And while Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said "we never leave until our work is done," briefing notes supplied to Defence Minister Dennis O'Connor suggest that the job won't be finished until late 2010.
More on link


----------



## Reccesoldier (30 Jan 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Extended Afghan mission planned, critics say
> Opposition cites plans as proof troops will stay until 2011
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> Article Link
> ...



Damn those conservatives for saying what they mean! And PLANNING for it!!!!


----------



## observor 69 (30 Jan 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Damn those conservatives for saying what they mean! And PLANNING for it!!!!



" And PLANNING for it!!!! "  Exactly, wouldn't any responsible CDS look long term at mission goals. What's the news story here ? I think we have already talked, in Army.ca, about the reasonable objectives to be reached before NATO could pull out.

Hey, ya work for the media ya gotta keep stirring the pot or you're out of a job.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Feb 2007)

> Thirty-six soldiers  and one diplomat have been killed since their the deployment 14 months ago.



Who the hell proof reads these things?


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2007)

Consider the source - can you say "Senlis"?   

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Afghan aid an exercise in 'feeling good'*
John Ivison, National Post, 7 Feb 07
Article Link

Afghanistan is now the largest recipient of Canada's foreign aid, with the government committed to spending $100-million a year on reconstruction efforts there. Stephen Harper said in an interview published in the National Post yesterday that he believes we are "making progress," and hinted in a major speech at new initiatives to improve accountability in the rebuilding efforts.

Yet many people who have looked at the performance of the Canadian International Development Agency, through which the aid money flows, question whether this is just a "feel-good" exercise, as one person familiar with CIDA put it.

Critics argue that CIDA is little more than an automatic teller machine for agencies like the World Bank, who actually deliver the programs on the ground. A list of CIDA projects reveals it is already committed to spending $227.8-million on 41 different projects but has only a slight presence on the ground. By the admission of Josee Verner, the CIDA Minister, there are only 11 agency staff in Afghanistan. Sometimes the three based in Kandahar leave the Canadian Forces base "to take pictures of what we are doing," she said.

*Norine MacDonald, the lead Afghanistan researcher for international think-tank Senlis Council,* is based in Kandahar. "The impact of CIDA in Kandahar province is so minimal as to be non-existent," she said. "The first victims of this are the Canadian military personnel and, second, the Afghans."

A Senate defence committee report last fall made a similar point, calling CIDA activity "sparse." The committee called Ms. Verner to testify but said she was unable to provide details on how much aid was reaching Kandahar.

The committee concluded it was "unsatisfactory" that aid was distributed through multilateral agencies and the Afghan government, "which in its infancy has developed the reputation for some degree of corruption," since this made it "impossible to measure the success of Canadian development projects in Afghanistan."

"Giving it to third parties to use may or may not be efficient, may or may not be in Canada's interests or the interests of Canadian troops serving in Afghanistan," it said, before recommending that CIDA refocus its aid allocation so that most of it goes directly to development projects in Kandahar to be delivered by the military.

The Senate Foreign Affairs committee is set to report on CIDA's policy "failures" in Africa next week. One person familiar with the report said CIDA's problems are systemic and predicted the Afghan development story will turn out to be a "fiasco."

"No one will ever find out what happened to the money. It's all to make people feel good. It's a feel-good business."

These allegations are refuted by Ms. Verner. "We can be very proud of our programs," she said. "We are working closely with respectable organizations like the World Bank and we track the money very closely. We don't just write a blank cheque and say 'goodbye'."

She cited the microfinance investment program MISFA, which has given small loans to 300,000 Afghans to date, as an example of the type of project where Canada is playing a key role as the lead donor.

Independent third party analysis supports the view that some progress is being made. The Post-War Reconstruction and Development Unit of England's York University recently sent five regional assessment teams into the field to look at the success of the Afghan government's National Solidarity Program, to which Canada has contributed $13-million so far. The researchers found that there was "significant evidence" of increased public faith in the system

of government, thanks largely to the establishment of thousands of village-level community development councils. "There have been many years of war but the NSP gives us hope and we know the world is supporting Afghanistan," said one person interviewed by the team.

Yet, despite the mood of optimism, the York researchers lamented that this alternative vision of Afghanistan is rarely seen. "The media continues to dwell on the activities of four or five thousand Taliban insurgents in five of 34 provinces. It is therefore hardly surprising that public opinion polls in Britain, Canada, Japan and the U.S. should continue to report a growing disenchantment with humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan," the report concluded.

The Canadian media must take their share of the blame for their fixation on the military over the mundane details of micro financing. But successive Canadian governments have also been culpable, putting lacklustre ministers in a portfolio that demands a forceful pitchman or woman. Ms. Verner joined Cabinet more for reasons of gender and geography than her ability to sell the Afghan mission to Canadians, and she can thank her lucky stars that the Prime Minister sacked Environment Minister Rona Ambrose last month--an admission of one bad Cabinet pick was seen as unlucky, two would've been considered careless.

Ultimately, the long-term success of the Afghan mission will be determined by whether Canadians believe it is making things better.

Canada has buried its war dead -- 44 soldiers and one diplomat -- as part of a mission the Prime Minister has described as "noble."

Canadians have always shown themselves to be prepared to endure tragedy, as long as it can be demonstrated the sacrifice is not in vain. In the battle for hearts and minds, the Harper government would be advised to look closer to home.

Jivison@nationalpost.com


----------



## McG (7 Feb 2007)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Norine MacDonald, the lead Afghanistan researcher for international think-tank Senlis Council, is based in Kandahar. "The impact of CIDA in Kandahar province is so minimal as to be non-existent," she said. "The first victims of this are the Canadian military personnel and, second, the Afghans."


This sensationalizes the issue a little more than is fitting.

I will admit that I was a little underwhelmed with the work of CIDA while I was over (though that is starting to have been a while ago & I hope things improved in the last few half year).  I am fully behind the military security & reconstruction mission, but it may very well be true that better "synergy" is required between military & CIDA (and this should be happening in the Kandahar PRT).


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2007)

There is a bit of a dilemma.  CIDA is not famous for good programme delivery so, in an effort to spend Canadians’ money wisely, they contract out to agencies, like the World Bank, which are good at delivery.  Then they get rapped for not doing enough - people, mainly journalists, need to see the Canadian flag, etc; without it they cannot say ”here’s how your (Canadian taxpayers) money is being spent.”

If we want to show Afghans and Canadians that Canada is helping then we probably have to settle for some (greater) degree of waste and bureaucratic ineptitude.

I can say, from hands on experience in 2003, that the World Bank was doing some very good work - using Canadian money and Canadian expertise, contracted/arranged by CIDA, amongst others.  But, they were World Bank projects - no big Canadian flag to wave at the taxpayers.

----------

P.S. The work in which I was involved was advisory; we did not go to Afghanstan - we advised Afghans in the comfort of our offices in Canada and in the offices of other contributors in London.  It made much better use of our time and Canada's money - it was more efficient and effective to bring a few Afghans to Canada than to send several Canadians to Kabul.


----------



## schart28 (12 Feb 2007)

CBC News: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/12/senate-defence.html

Canada must send more personnel to Afghanistan and increase development funding, says a Senate defence committee report to be published Monday.

The report will recommend Canada send additional police and military trainers to Kandahar to help boost the country's fledgling army and police force.

It recommends Ottawa provide millions more in development aid for the military until aid groups can set up in the wartorn region.

The defence committee report also criticizes NATO countries for failing to provide enough military support to Canadian troops, who, along with the Americans, British and Dutch, are working in the volatile southern region.

Canadian and NATO leaders have repeatedly called on member countries to send more troops to the country to help battle Taliban militants and their supporters.

Members of the Senate defence committee visited the more than 2,000 Canadian soldiers serving in the Kandahar region last December.

Since the mission started in 2002, 44 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan.


----------



## GAP (12 Feb 2007)

Senate report takes 'hard look' at Afghanistan
Updated Mon. Feb. 12 2007 9:35 AM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

A hard-hitting Senate report, set for release Monday, is calling on Ottawa to send more development aid as well as police and military trainers to Afghanistan. 

The 11-point strategy, titled "Taking a Hard look at a Hard Mission," reads as a blunt assessment of Canada's role in Afghanistan. 

The report, obtained in advance by the Toronto Star, calls for 60 more Canadian police officers -- up from the 10 currently there -- and 250 Canadian troops to help train law enforcement officers and the Afghan National Army. 

It also says Ottawa needs to warn its NATO allies that Canada will rethink its commitment in Afghanistan if other countries don't send more troops. 

"It is... doubtful that the mission can be accomplished given the limited resources that NATO is currently investing," it says. 

On development, the Senate defence committee says $20 million a year must be given to the military until aid groups are able to operate safely in the country. 

"The combination of too many lives being lost and too little development assistance... contributes to making life bleak and dangerous in the Kandahar region," says the report. 

The committee also accuses the Afghan government of rampant corruption. It demands that President Hamid Karzai implement a "comprehensive, transparent and effective plan" to reduce corruption. 
More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Feb 2007)

Here's a link to the report:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/repfeb07-e.pdf

and the executive summary
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/ExecSumRepFeb07-e.pdf

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

*Canadian Troops in Afghanistan:  Taking a Hard Look at a Hard Mission*
An Interim Report of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence

This report examines some of the challenges that Canada’s current mission to Afghanistan is up against. The report makes a series of recommendations as to how to improve the mission’s chance of success.

Members of the Committee see the report as a contribution to what we believe should be a national debate on Canada’s deployment to Afghanistan.  It is important that Canadians support our troops in Afghanistan. It is also important that Canadians monitor the successes and failures of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan to help them advise politicians on the conduct and future of that mission.

If the Canadian mission is to succeed, it will have to overcome a number of formidable obstacles. While the Committee is not certain that those obstacles will eventually diminish to the point that the mission can be declared a success, we believe that there are ways of improving the odds.

Our recommendations are directed toward that end. Given that Canada is committed to its military deployment in Afghanistan until February 2009 – and given that it is also committed under “The Afghanistan Compact” until February 2011 to participate with 40 other countries in the overall rehabilitation of Afghanistan – the Committee calls upon the Government of Canada to do everything possible to improve the prospects of success in Afghanistan.

The Committee Recommends That:

1. the Government of Canada continue to apply pressure on its NATO allies to provide additional troops to assist in the training of the Afghan National Army through the use of Operational Mentor Liaison Teams.

2. the Government of Canada send up to 250 additional Canadian Forces instructors when an increase in the number of Afghan National Army trainees in Kandahar requires an expansion of the Canadian Operational Mentor Liaison Teams.

3. the Government of Canada provide up to 60 Canadian police trainers in addition to its current contingent of approximately 6 officers (soon to be 10) to help train the Afghan National Police and its Auxiliary.

4. the Government of Canada significantly augment the $10 million contribution announced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in January
2007 to provide uniforms and, for future years, to improve benefits and salaries for the Afghan National Police.

5. the Government of Canada, in order to minimize civilian casualties, continue with the “gentle approach” of providing advance warning to
civilians of forays against Taliban fighters, as successfully used in Operation Baaz Tsuka.

6. the Government of Canada should announce that while it understands that Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan is long term, it will be forced to reconsider its commitment unless NATO, within the next 12 months, puts into place in Kandahar a significantly larger and fully-engaged stability force.

7. in the next year and in subsequent fiscal years, until NGOs are able to safely function in Kandahar, CIDA provide from its budget $20 million directly to the Canadian Forces for their use in local development projects by Afghans.

8. the Government of Canada advise the Karzai government that it must, within the next 12 months, present to NATO a comprehensive,
transparent and effective plan to reduce corruption as a condition of Canada’s continued long term commitment in Afghanistan.

9. to effectively stop Taliban infiltration, the Government of Canada, with its NATO partners and Afghanistan, establish a defensible buffer zone in Afghanistan on the Afghan side of its border with Pakistan.

10. the Government of Canada increase agricultural and commercial assistance to help Afghan farmers in their transition from growing
poppies to cultivating legitimate alternative crops. 

11. the Government of Canada, in conjunction with Afghan authorities, should engage our special forces and RCMP intelligence gathering
expertise in an accelerated program of interdiction, targeting drug lords and their distribution systems in order to quell the trade of narcotics. 

- 30 -


----------



## GAP (12 Feb 2007)

Here's how the MSM is reporting the Senate report

Strange, it sounds an awful lot like the stuff I have been reading here.....

Afghan peace will take generations: report
TENILLE BONOGUORE  Globe and Mail Update
Article Link

Canada must demand more help from NATO or get ready to leave Afghanistan say the authors of a Senate committee report that warns peace in the war-torn nation is a still generations away.

In a frank 16-page interim report, the Senate committee on national security and defence says more troops, more money and a bigger commitment from other NATO countries must be gained within a year.

Publicly releasing the report on Monday, Senate committee chair Colin Kenny said Canada should expect its allies to step up to the challenge. If that doesn't happen, he says Canada must “take another look” at its mission.

“We cannot stay there forever,” Mr. Kenny said. “The solution has to be in us helping the Afghans solve their problem, and our efforts have to be driven towards that.

“But as the report says, that is going to take an extraordinarily long period of time, a significantly greater effort by the allies, and a great deal of money.”
More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Feb 2007)

More MSM coverage, from the News Only Thread:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/57138/post-527037.html#msg527037

Gotta love Al Jazeera - taking a "should get outta AFG" and making it a "could get outta AFG"....


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Feb 2007)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> More MSM coverage, from the News Only Thread:
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/57138/post-527037.html#msg527037
> 
> Gotta love Al Jazeera - taking a "should get outta AFG" and making it a "could get outta AFG"....



Translation difficulties donchano.

How to explain all those Canadian articles that say the Senate reports that Canadians SHOULD be withdrawn - when it is clear that the Senate is recommending it as a negotiating tactic to ge more NATO troops on the ground?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Feb 2007)

Let me see, more military and Police? and where pray tell will they becoming from? Most police forces are screaming for people, the military can barely train itself, let's just bite the bullet and raise our own Gurkha battalion. I am sure they will be culturally sensitive to the needs of the Taliban.  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Feb 2007)

Personally I think Gurkhas would make great Canadian citizens......


----------



## genericview (13 Feb 2007)

I am actually quite impressed with the recommendations.  They seem rather sound and sane and able to be implemented with a bit a work and faill in line with the Govt. approach actuall.

This one gives me a bit of humour though:
6. the Government of Canada should announce that while it understands that Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan is long term, it will be forced to reconsider its commitment unless NATO, within the next 12 months, puts into place in Kandahar a significantly larger and fully-engaged stability force.

All those years Canada sat on its soft arse while other nations put the money and effort into keeping sizable and upto date deterant forces in NATO makes this a kind of two faced statement.


----------



## enfield (13 Feb 2007)

As someone who is inherently anti-Senate, I view anything from this body with suspicion and skepticism - so view my comments accordingly. Having looked at the biographies of most of the Senators involved, I'm not particularly impressed by their credentials to make recommendations to the PMO, the military, DFAIT, or CIDA. 



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> 1. the Government of Canada continue to apply pressure on its NATO allies to provide additional troops to assist in the training of the Afghan National Army through the use of Operational Mentor Liaison Teams.



Sounds good - nothing to really argue with here, but nothing new either.



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> 2. the Government of Canada send up to 250 additional Canadian Forces instructors when an increase in the number of Afghan National Army trainees in Kandahar requires an expansion of the Canadian Operational Mentor Liaison Teams.



250? Where did the Senatorial Field Marshals come up with this? Where will the CF find 250 instructors? We can barely train the Canadian Army, I don't think another 250 is a realistic plan. If it was feasible to expand the training teams, I'm sure the staffs at CEFCOM and the commanders in theatre would have tried it.



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> 3. the Government of Canada provide up to 60 Canadian police trainers in addition to its current contingent of approximately 6 officers (soon to be 10) to help train the Afghan National Police and its Auxiliary.



I must admit to being a little shocked there are so few police officers there - I assumed it was more, so kudos to the Committee to bringing attention to this. If the RCMP and local police forces of Canada can find 60 volunteers, by all means - they are needed. 



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> 4. the Government of Canada significantly augment the $10 million contribution announced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in January
> 2007 to provide uniforms and, for future years, to improve benefits and salaries for the Afghan National Police.



That's a fair chunk of change - and it buys a whole lot of uniforms. Sounds good, but perhaps first the corruption needs to be settled first (see point 8 ). Or, we can supply them with surplus Canadian gear, or have a Canadian firm make a few million bucks worth of uniforms for them. 



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> 5. the Government of Canada, in order to minimize civilian casualties, continue with the “gentle approach” of providing advance warning to
> civilians of forays against Taliban fighters, as successfully used in Operation Baaz Tsuka.



Thank-you Rideau Armchair Generals. I don't think the Canadian Army needs a reminder from the Senate to avoid killing civilians. I'd leave this area to the on-scene commanders. 



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> 6. the Government of Canada should announce that while it understands that Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan is long term, it will be forced to reconsider its commitment unless NATO, within the next 12 months, puts into place in Kandahar a significantly larger and fully-engaged stability force.



I'm not sure Canada has the clout to stand up and make a stand like that. Are we going to backout of our commitment, leave our Allies Britain and America hanging, just because (shockingly!) Europe didn't pay up? Lesson learned for next time - go to war with the US and UK, not France and Spain.



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> 7. in the next year and in subsequent fiscal years, until NGOs are able to safely function in Kandahar, CIDA provide from its budget $20 million directly to the Canadian Forces for their use in local development projects by Afghans.



Excellent point. I don't like seeing the CF as a development agency, but if NGOs and CIDA can't do the job, the military has too. 



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> 8. the Government of Canada advise the Karzai government that it must, within the next 12 months, present to NATO a comprehensive,
> transparent and effective plan to reduce corruption as a condition of Canada’s continued long term commitment in Afghanistan.



Easier said than done. A good goal, but probably beyond what we can reasonably expect of the Karzai government given the patchwork of loyalties, ethnicities, and clans that make up the country and form the government. If this is a measure of success, we're doomed to fail. I'd be happy if they stop shooting at each other and stop supporting the Taliban - corruption is a secondary issue, until the shooting stops.



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> 9. to effectively stop Taliban infiltration, the Government of Canada, with its NATO partners and Afghanistan, establish a defensible buffer zone in Afghanistan on the Afghan side of its border with Pakistan.



"Defensible Buffer Zone"? Like the DMZ in Korea? Is this a free fire zone? a belt of mines? The area is already isolated, devoid of law and order, and lacking basic infrastructure - what more do they want? This idea may have appeared to be pure genius when looking at the map from Dubai, but it seems a little silly in reality.



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> 10. the Government of Canada increase agricultural and commercial assistance to help Afghan farmers in their transition from growing
> poppies to cultivating legitimate alternative crops.



We - the Military, Canada, or NATO - can't replace the role the poppy plays in the economy of some regions of Afghanistan, and any attempt to do so can only destablize the country. The idea floated earlier in the year, of developing opium production towards pharmaceutical use, seems a much better plan.



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> 11. the Government of Canada, in conjunction with Afghan authorities, should engage our special forces and RCMP intelligence gathering
> expertise in an accelerated program of interdiction, targeting drug lords and their distribution systems in order to quell the trade of narcotics.



While I'm in favour of an increased role for the RCMP in the theatre, I don't see how "RCMP intelligence gathering" techniques are particularly suited to Afghanistan. This isn't like tracking grow ops in BC, or tracing organized crime links in Quebec. Where the poppy fields are is pretty obvious, and I don't think the soldiers in the region are ignorant of who owns them, moves them, and profits from them. And if the Canadian troops don't know, their Afghan counterparts probably do. The problem is the guys who shoot at you when you start burning the poppies...


----------



## McG (13 Feb 2007)

Enfield said:
			
		

> milnewstbay said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Development is exactly the role of the PRT (which is CF, CIDA, DFAIT, etc).  The diplomats in the PRT should be putting this money into projects within the Canadian AO.  If the diplomats won't leave the camp without mine protected helicopters, then the Army should be given the freedom to employ these funds.



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> 4. the Government of Canada significantly augment the $10 million contribution announced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in January
> 2007 to provide uniforms and, for future years, to improve benefits and salaries for the Afghan National Police.


Did we not send several of the old OD uniforms last year?



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> 6. the Government of Canada should announce that while it understands that Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan is long term, it will be forced to reconsider its commitment unless NATO, within the next 12 months, puts into place in Kandahar a significantly larger and fully-engaged stability force.


1. Kandahar is not the only place that needs more from NATO.  I'm guessing the Brits & Dutch could use just as much help in their provinces.

2. If we turn our backs on the Afghans, then we only become part of the problem.  This is the type of threat one might expect of a child.  We (Canada) made a commitment to Afghanistan to help rebuild & bring security to the country.  We should feel an obligation to meet that commitment even if some of our allies are not pulling their weight.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Feb 2007)

Usual caveat re:  the blinkers worn by the specific organization in question, but still worth at least looking at (even if just to pick it apart) - like, for example, if corruption is such a big issue, how will a government run licensing scheme guarantee no drug money to bad guys???  Highlights are mine.

*The next two months will be ‘make or break’ in southern Afghanistan as threat of a major spring offensive from Taliban looms*
The cities of Lashkar Gah and Kandahar are in the sights of the Taliban
Poppy crop eradication has started this year, sparking a new wave of violence –eradication will further fuel Spring offensive as anger mounts already 
Senlis Council news release, 14 Feb 07
Article Link - Latest Report

LONDON - A ‘make or break’ situation is facing the international community in southern Afghanistan in the coming months, with the threat from the Taliban of a major spring offensive against international forces. Musa Qala fell two weeks ago – the Taliban now have the big towns in their sights and anyone who can leave has already left. The latest Field Report from The Senlis Council, Counter Insurgency in Afghanistan: Losing Friends and Making Enemies concludes that *the international communities’ own policies are responsible for the dramatic loss of support for the Karzai government and international presence in the southern provinces of Afghanistan over the past year - and for the rise in the insurgency.
*

“With our own policies, we have created our own enemies,” said *Norine MacDonald QC*  , Founding President of The Senlis Council, who has lived and worked in Afghanistan for the past two years. “The policies implemented by the international community have created these resentful and poor young men who cannot feed their families, and they are now being easily recruited by the Taliban. Through these misguided policies, the international community has turned southern Afghanistan into a recruitment camp for the Taliban”.
_
One insurgency – two types of insurgents_

“Although the insurgency in southern Afghanistan is extremely complex, it can be divided up into two basic groups,” said MacDonald. “*There is a core Taliban insurgency which has ties to the Global Jihad, Al Qaeda movement, and a ‘Grassroots’ Taliban insurgency which is driven by extreme poverty.*” Recruitment to the grassroots insurgency has exploded in the last year because the local population is becoming increasingly poor, more desperate and more resentful of the international community’s actions. “The Taliban are a very competitive employer, offering wages with which no other employer can compete,” said MacDonald. “They are able to recruit so easily because people cannot feed their families.” The Taliban offer up to $12 a day against the $2 a day for a soldier in the Afghan Army.

_Legitimate Grievances must be addressed to calm the insurgency_

“There are many legitimate grievances of the local Afghan population which could be simply and inexpensively dealt with.” said MacDonald. “New Taliban recruitment could be avoided by simply showing local communities that the international community is in Afghanistan to help, leaving the ‘Global Jihad Insurgents” as the only legitimate enemy.” *Legitimate grievances include the large numbers of civilian deaths, injuries and displacements caused by fighting; forced poppy crop eradication while many farmers are still fully dependent on poppy crops to feed their families; the lack of food aid and humanitarian assistance; the overall lack of development; the perception that the Karzai government is a puppet regime; the lack of public facilities such as hospitals and schools and the perception that the international community does not respect the culture and traditions of Afghanistan.*

_Reality check: the need to re-assess counter-insurgency in Afghanistan_

Humanitarian aid, development and institution building have been under-funded and neglected during five years of international presence in Afghanistan. “This is a blatant disregard of the established counter insurgency theories, which advocate a complete package of diverse development based interventions such as medical assistance and education, in addition to the necessary military responses,” said MacDonald. For example, no provision has been made for treating the large numbers of civilian casualties which occur due to fighting and bombing in the southern provinces. According to Case Study also released the Senlis Afghanistan today, the two hospitals in Kandahar and Lashkar Gah are in a state of total disrepair and wholly unequipped to deal with any emergency war zone trauma or the widespread malnutrition now found in the area.. (These two hospitals of 600 are also the only health care facilities for a population of about 4 million)

“The people of Afghanistan have become the unwilling victims of a war which is not their own,” said MacDonald. “Proper provision has not been made according to the Geneva Conventions for civilian casualties in a war zone where international troops are actively fighting. These people feel that they have been abandoned by the International Community. The hospitals have no equipment, no medicines, no blood, no heating. For the most part, civilians injured in the bombing campaigns are abandoned by the international community.” The case study which accompanies the report provides examples of the unnecessary suffering caused by the lack of facilities and investment. One 8 year old girl died from burns at the hospital in Helmand in January for the lack of about £20 pounds worth of medicine. She also died after three days of agony due to lack of any medicinal painkiller – *a tragic irony for someone who comes from the place in the world which produces the raw materials for essential painkilling medicines.* 

In 2006, some 2000 NATO bombing campaigns were executed over southern Afghanistan, causing an estimated 4000 civilian deaths and an untold number of casualties, for which there is practically no possibility of treatment. “The insurgency in southern Afghanistan has been fuelled by the neglect of the international community to address vital issues such as emergency treatment for victims of the international forces’ bombing campaigns, or the widespread starvation now present in Southern Afghanistan” said MacDonald.

_Forced poppy crop eradication must stop.
_
Crop eradication is destroying livelihoods, creating even more poverty and has proved to be wholly ineffective – last year alone, cultivation was up by 60% despite large-scale crop eradication – yet it is the strategy that the international community, led by the United States, is still pushing for this year. By sitting back and allowing this destructive and counterproductive policy to be applied, the UK is complicit in a policy which is undermining its own military forces. “The international community has failed the Afghan government,” said MacDonald. “The Karzai government often bears the brunt for what are essentially failures of the international community

The increasing number of civilian deaths and injuries from the NATO bombing campaigns in the south has directly contributed to the disintegration of the local population’s support for the international community and their troops, and decreased support for President Karzai.” “This year’s crop eradication campaign has just started and promises to be even bigger than last year,” said MacDonald. “It has already brought with it new fighting – a foretaste of the carnage we can expect as the eradication unfolds this spring.”
*
Opium licensing – a practical solution for southern Afghanistan’s opium crisis*

*The Senlis Council has been working on a proposal to license the opium grown in Afghanistan.* This would supply livelihoods for many of the rural communities, whilst at the same time providing much needed essential medicines such as morphine and codeine, for which there is currently a world shortage. Opium poppy is a very hardy crop and one of the only ones which can grow in the harsh climate of southern Afghanistan, especially under the current conditions of drought. *The Council is currently calling for the implementation of a series of pilot projects in Southern Afghanistan.*

Development and aid must start to match military interventions to show support for the drought stricken, under-nourished local people and gain their support. The need is urgent, or their support will be lost to the insurgents, who are offering them food and money now.

Not only has the international community failed to deliver the necessary aid to Afghanistan, it has exacerbated the desperate situation of the people by unleashing a brutal bombing campaign, using the elimination of the Taliban as justification
_
Destruction is more extensive than reconstruction in southern Afghanistan_

The Report notes that the mounting numbers of civilian casualties and deaths resulting from the bombings intended to root out the Taliban, combined with the increasing numbers of families fleeing their home villages because they have been caught-up in violence, intensifying the conflict in the south of the country, and have provided a perfect breeding ground for Taliban propaganda and Taliban recruitment. Two thousand six hundred bombing missions were flown this year under the instructions of the international community.

Recommendations
1) Immediate cessation of forced poppy crop eradication and bombing raids

2) Immediate widespread food aid An end to the strategy of fear and destruction – a full assessment on the nature and extent of the bombing campaigns

3) Compensation to civilian victims of bombings

4) Military paramedics and field hospitals to aid civilian war casualties

5) The rebuilding of existent hospitals and the construction of new ones

6) Compensation for and rebuilding of villages destroyed by the bombing campaign

7) A complete overhaul of failed counter-narcotics strategies – crop eradication must stop

8) Pilot projects for an opium licensing scheme for the production of medicine

9) Compensation to civilian victims of bombings

10) Development and aid investments equal to military spending

11) To create stability by applying a robust economic response the grassroots insurgency

12) To create a shared long term vision for Afghanistan and to *stop imposing ‘Western’ ideals.*

The Economic Stablisation Process must provide an economic alternative to the young men to joining the ranks of the Taliban.The Economic Stablisation Process must provide an economic alternative to the young men to joining the ranks of the Taliban.

The Senlis Council is an international policy think tank with offices in Kabul, London, Paris and Brussels. The Council’s work encompasses foreign policy, security, development and counter-narcotics policies and aims to provide innovative analysis and proposals within these areas. The extensive programme currently underway in Afghanistan focuses on global policy development in conjunction with field research to investigate the relationships between counter-narcotics, military, and development policies and their consequences on Afghanistan’s reconstruction efforts. Senlis Afghanistan has field offices in the Afghan cities of Lashkar Gah and Kandahar.


----------



## observor 69 (14 Feb 2007)

This article raises a number of issues that should be responded to by an appropriate Canadian government authority. One that springs to mind is are we doing anything to aid the hospital in Kandahar?

Scott Taylor's article provides further context for the Senlis report.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/print_article.html?story=558556


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Feb 2007)

I agree with _Senlis_ re: the poppy crop.  I think the eradication programme is, at best, ill-conceived;  I suspect it is aimed, squarely, at the US domestic constituency and ignores the social, economic and geographic realities of Afghanistan.

I am inclined to agree that we, the ISAF nations, can and should do more and more ‘development’ but, as the very recent Canadian Senate report pointed out it may be necessary, in Kandahar at least, to channel development money and effort through the military – at the risk of weakening our purely military effort if we cannot add more people to spend ,ore money wisely.

*I’m in danger of straying out of my lane* here, but I also worry about the effects, on our primary counter-insurgency task, of the bombing efforts.  I cannot help but believe that bombing is going to be counter productive.  I know it can and does bring certainty to a battle – quickly.

We need certainty – if we are not certain to beat the enemy then there is a chance he can/will beat us; there is an ever greater chance that he will escape and live to fight another day.  I wonder what price, in the all important _‘hearts and minds’_ business, we pay for that certainty.

While I don’t want to sacrifice (much) certainty, I am convinced that we could and should win battles more slowly but just as certainly if we used direct fire weapons which are more discriminate than bombs.

OK, back into my own lane ...

I very much agree that we should not, because we cannot and we(even George Bush)  must appreciate that we cannot impose modern, Western, liberal, secular ‘ideals’ or ‘values’ on old, backwards, ‘Eastern,’ conservative and religious Afghanistan.  Our aim must be to allow the Afghans to live their own lives in their own ways – albeit in ways which do not threaten us.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Feb 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> This article raises a number of issues that should be responded to by an appropriate Canadian government authority. One that springs to mind is are we doing anything to aid the hospital in Kandahar?  Scott Taylor's article provides further context for the Senlis report.
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/print_article.html?story=558556



Call me dopey, but I thought the CF was also doing this kind of presence patrolling/aid work, no?



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I am inclined to agree that we, the ISAF nations, can and should do more and more ‘development’ but, as the very recent Canadian Senate report pointed out it may be necessary, in Kandahar at least, to channel development money and effort through the military – at the risk of weakening our purely military effort if we cannot add more people to spend more money wisely.



Agreed, at the VERY least, in the shorter term until things become a bit more secure (which is why I donate $ to this worthy endeavour ).


----------



## genericview (14 Feb 2007)

I think one of the biggest hurtles we face in Afghanistan is the fact that Canadian accounting rules and code of fiscal responsibility has been applied to that theatre.  The rules need to be changed to allow for faster and more direct aide to get to the proper place fast.  I am hardly saying toss out all the responsibility and accountability for our aide but goodness there needs to be an “Afghan” set of rules developed with the goal of getting the aide to those desperately needed it.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2007)

In my opinion the Selenis council is raising a big, fat red herring. The Kandahar district was known for fruit production prior to the wars, and I suspect the farmers who grow poppies now are coerced in one way or another. Poppies are rather hard to eat, after all, and the poor farmers stay poor growing poppies; where do these Selenis Council clowns think the profits go?

Agricultural renewal should go hand in hand with poppy eradication, and if there is a practical way to do this, reforestation should also be high on the list. If Afghan farmers and landowners have useful crops that they can control and exploit for their own benefit, then the drug lords will have less of a hold, and the local economy can grow and diversify.


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Feb 2007)

E.R. Campbell:  Good point on bombing.  A good reason for having tanks, I think.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## midget-boyd91 (15 Feb 2007)

Piper said:
			
		

> Stop the eradication.
> 
> We buy the poppy crop. Then we buy the next one. And the next one. Then, for the next one, we say 'we'll buy the NEXT one but only if you plant these seeds'. The then we buy the next crop of wheat or whatever. And the next, and the next and the next .
> 
> ...



IMHO I think that the threat of being killed and having my entire family killed for planting the wheat, corn, etc... would overpower the money that has been offered. I really do think it is going to be one of the problems that is going to be left unsolved by the time that we leave.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Feb 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> In my opinion the Selenis council is raising a big, fat red herring. The Kandahar district was known for fruit production prior to the wars, and I suspect the farmers who grow poppies now are coerced in one way or another. Poppies are rather hard to eat, after all, and the poor farmers stay poor growing poppies; where do these Selenis Council clowns think the profits go?  Agricultural renewal should go hand in hand with poppy eradication, and if there is a practical way to do this, reforestation should also be high on the list. If Afghan farmers and landowners have useful crops that they can control and exploit for their own benefit, then the drug lords will have less of a hold, and the local economy can grow and diversify.



What might be the balance between coercion and market forces?  If there's more money to be made selling opium for the same effort, I'd think that would be a factor.

I, myself, would be OK paying more for "Taliban-free" products from this part of the world, the same way some advocate charging more for organic products.  Let's see how much more left-of-centrists would pay for products produced in areas no longer controlled by the Taliban.

Also, if reforestation is an issue, I'm OK with donating $ to "adopt a patch" to re-tree.  Ante up, tree huggers...

Admittedly, these would only be small tiles in the huge complex mosaic that would be "Solving AFG", but can't hurt, no?


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Feb 2007)

Piper said:
			
		

> Stop the eradication.
> 
> We buy the poppy crop. Then we buy the next one. And the next one. Then, for the next one, we say 'we'll buy the NEXT one but only if you plant these seeds'. The then we buy the next crop of wheat or whatever. And the next, and the next and the next .
> 
> ...



Makes tons of sense to me - the question, though, is how long it would take, and is the int'l community (with its mix of different political aims/mandates/comfort levels) in a position to stay that course for kind fo timeline.


----------



## MikeM (15 Feb 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> E.R. Campbell:  Good point on bombing.  A good reason for having tanks, I think.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



When you're in a TIC and need quick support, a tank is not what I want to be waiting for.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Feb 2007)

MikeM said:
			
		

> When you're in a TIC and need quick support, a tank is not what I want to be waiting for.



*Off track*, a bit.

Funny, and it shows how old and out of touch I am: _in my day_ tanks were plentiful and readily available - even to a platoon commander.  Air support was scarce, difficult to obtain, hard to control, easily and often redirected at the last moment, and so on and so forth.

It illustrates the danger of theorizing without current knowledge of the facts on the ground.

OK, back to the topic at hand.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Feb 2007)

Latest in the House of Commons (from yesterday) on the K'Har hospital situation:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/53734/post-528119.html#msg528119

Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, BQ):  Mr. Speaker, my question is for 
the minister.  The disgraceful condition of the hospital in Kandahar, as described in this 
report, dramatically illustrates the weakness of the humanitarian side of the mission. We 
are talking about a place of death, not a hospital.  Given that the Taliban could launch 
an offensive in the spring, does the government not believe that investing in medical 
infrastructure would send a strong message that Canada is there to help the Afghan people?

Hon. Josée Verner (Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie 
and Official Languages, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the Bloc member does not seem to understand yet 
that Canada is there to provide Afghanistan with development assistance. *We are closely 
monitoring the situation at the Kandahar hospital.  As you know, we are working with our 
partners in the field. As soon as needs are identified, we allocate funds so that projects 
can be carried out.*

Possible translation of bold:  one or several bureaucrats are being squeezed asked to make 
a Treasury Board authority for funding fit a new pigeonhole entitled, "fixing hospital in Kandahar".


----------



## McG (15 Feb 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> *I’m in danger of straying out of my lane* here, but I also worry about the effects, on our primary counter-insurgency task, of the bombing efforts.  I cannot help but believe that bombing is going to be counter productive.  I know it can and does bring certainty to a battle – quickly.


We dropped a lot of bombs while I was there.  Each one was a precision attack against what we knew to be enemy.  The talk of a "bombing campaing" is misguiding and possibly intended to cause people to think of Dresden as opposed to what is really happening on the ground.


----------



## 3rd Herd (15 Feb 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I can say, from hands on experience in 2003, that the World Bank was doing some very good work - using Canadian money and Canadian expertise, contracted/arranged by CIDA, amongst others.  But, they were World Bank projects - no big Canadian flag to wave at the taxpayers.
> 
> ----------
> 
> P.S. The work in which I was involved was advisory; we did not go to Afghanstan - we advised Afghans in the comfort of our offices in Canada and in the offices of other contributors in London.  It made much better use of our time and Canada's money - it was more efficient and effective to bring a few Afghans to Canada than to send several Canadians to Kabul.



I figure I would wade in here. Having spent a year and a couple of months with one of the biggest IHAO(International Humanitarian Aid Organizations) both on the ground and back here in Canada. Our (myself as lead developer) project was given an eight month time line to develop the format and then four months on the ground implementation. The format and guidelines was accomplished in a little over three months. First problem, we worked too quick and did not included other departments in the "envisioning process". This irked myself a little since given the parameters of what they wanted accomplished there was no need to 'envision', it was just straight pen and paper work. Next the 'highers' were irked as they did not have a chance to have their opinions heard. My thoughts there was if they were so good how come we were brought in to do the project. Next by keeping those out who did not have a vested intrest we cut out allot of wasted time, hence our quick start up time. We were counselled a number of times that were are not 'political' enough. Read that is "don't hog all the glory to yourselves, this is a full time living for some of us". My next turn on the carpet came when allowed to recruit my own staff. I leaned somewhat heavily toward employing as many former service personal as I could find. Most of you reading this will understand my logic in that. The rest was filled by recent undergrads or fourth year students. Might as well access the minds who contain the most current and up to date academic data and trends.(objection here was they had no field experience). With both groups it also boilled done to a question of loyalty. They were loyal to me,each other and to seeing the project through. What more could I ask for and I could trust them to get the job done in the minimal amount of time (none of us watched the clock). When we finally got to the field stage I laid the rules down quite clear about expense claims and per diems. The rules were obeyed, allowing myself to move a little extra money into the project areas. Now when one of the 'highers' appeared on a 'visit' and promptly checked into the local version of a five star, spent one hour a day in the field and the rest of the time 'in consultation' with local government officials. It provide a very illuminating experience for the younger students that had not run across a "professional" aid worker before. Now with Afghanistan the reason aid agencies are reluctant is that is does not fit their political agenda. Most of us involved in the aforementioned project have repeatably applied for projects there, our appeals so far have fallen on deaf ears. 

PS. My civic donation list is now very narrow and begins with RHQ Edmonton..............


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Feb 2007)

Interesting 3rd herd, my sister in law lives in Malaysia and has been involved in Aceh for quite sometime through different NGO's. She was there before and after the disaster, her opinion of most of the NGO's is about as high as yours, and even though she is anti-USA, she conceded to me that the US military was the only effective group there for quite some time. She said many of the NGO's came to the area, set up a flag, tent, did a press conference/tour and never came back, leaving the people with broken promises.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Feb 2007)

I was intrigued by the convergance of messaging from the politicians and CDS regarding the coming campaign season in AFG:


Enough troops are in place to "do the job" (we're good to go).
Expect more casualties.
We don't expect them to hit us in set piece conventional fights.

I know this isn't "news" to forum participants, but I found it interesting how it's all fallen into place so nicely in a variety of MSM forums, especially after all the calls for more troops from NATO allies - good message co-ordination and discipline, indeed.

Latest news here, but highlights of recent coverage below.



*NATO south Afghan mission has enough troops -Canada*
David Ljunggren, Reuters, 16 Feb 07
Article Link

Senior Canadian military officials, who have long complained there are not enough NATO troops in southern Afghanistan, said on Friday that alliance force levels in the region are now adequate.  Canada has 2,500 troops in the southern city of Kandahar and as recently as last October it said it could not maintain the mission without more support.  But the official tone changed sharply after President George W. Bush said on Thursday the United States would keep higher troop levels in Afghanistan ahead of an expected surge in Taliban attacks and called on NATO to commit more troops.  *"The United States is putting in more forces, Britain is putting in more forces. We have sufficient force structure on the ground in the south at this moment to do the job that we have to do," *said General Rick Hillier, chief of Canada's defense staff ....  


*NATO allies pulling their weight: O'Connor*
Past criticisms forgotten as Canada says it's satisfied by allies' actions
Mike Blanchfield, Ottawa Citizen, 17 Feb 07
Permalink

After months of complaining that some NATO allies are shirking front-line fighting in Afghanistan, Canada backed down yesterday, saying the alliance has what it needs -- for now -- to continue combat operations in the country's volatile south.  "I'm quite pleased with our allies in the north and the west." Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said yesterday. *"I think we may have enough now in the south and the east to do the job."*  He was referring to countries such as France, Germany and Italy who are operating in the more peaceful north and west of Afghanistan  ....  Mr. O'Connor said NATO was now in better shape in those two troubled sectors: The U.S. has extending the tour of duty of 3,200 of its troops, Britain is sending an additional 500 soldiers to Helmand province, and Poland is contributing 1,000 troops ....


*Bush's commitment to Afghanistan 'reassuring,' Canadian ambassador says*
BETH GORHAM, Canadian Press, 16 Feb 07
Article Link

President George W. Bush's increase in support for Afghanistan is "reassuring" and the United States is well aware of the lives Canada has sacrificed there, says Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson.  ....  
Most of Wilson's meetings - on Capitol Hill, at the White House or administration offices - start with condolences for the soldiers Canada has lost in Afghanistan. "There's good awareness but there's also very strong appreciation," he said ....  For Wilson, t*he key element of Bush's speech was the emphasis on all three aspects of the Afghan mission - defence, development and diplomacy. "It's very compatible with what our prime minister's been saying about Afghanistan ... Definitely we're on the same page, as we are with other countries."*  Concerned that Bush's deployment of more troops to Iraq would detract from Afghanistan, Canada lobbied hard late last year for continued strong support for the Afghan mission.  "When I came here, there was a period when they were down at 16,000 (soldiers)," said Wilson.  *"The statement by the president was definitely reassuring, clearly demonstrating an increase in support. It's very important that we know they are solidly there with us."* ....


*Brace for more losses, PM says*
Taliban preparing for `bloody attacks,' in spring, but NATO troops ready for threat
Richard Brennan & Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star, 17 Feb 07
Article Link

Canadians should brace themselves for more casualties in Afghanistan as the Taliban prepare for a spring or summer offensive, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says.  "Our plan for Afghanistan is to be successful. *We know it will not be easy; we know it will involve casualties," *Harper said in Mississauga yesterday.  Harper said Taliban activity has been kept in check now for several months, so "we do expect a renewed spring and or summer offensive."  Canadian soldiers know when they go to Afghanistan they may not be coming home, the Prime Minister added. "That's one of the real risks in this country," he said at the opening of a distribution centre for pharmaceuticals destined for Afghanistan and other Third World countries.  Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, says he expects insurgents to use hit-and-run guerrilla tactics that have proven costly to troops over the last year in Kandahar. The Taliban learned "painful lessons" last September when they dug in against Canadian troops and attacked en masse, he said.  "We don't believe that they will mass in conventional-style warfare (this year) because when they do, they die," Hillier said. * "We think they'll concentrate on suicide bombers, vehicle bombers, (roadside bombs) and small ambushes,"* he told reporters after a speech to a defence conference in Ottawa ....


*Afghan spring will be deadly, Harper warns*
PM resolute after Hillier decries military's 'decade of darkness' under Liberal government
GLORIA GALLOWAY and KAREN HOWLETT, Globe & Mail, 17 Feb 07
Article Link

Prime Minister Stephen Harper cautioned yesterday that a spring offensive threatened by the Taliban in Afghanistan will be both dangerous and deadly but Canadian forces will not shy away from the fight.  "We certainly are aware that those are the plans of the Taliban," Mr. Harper said of the offensive predicted by North Atlantic Treaty Organization commanders and analysts. *"Our soldiers, men and women who go over there, know full well when they go over there that not all of them will return." * Mr. Harper told reporters he has every expectation that the Taliban will launch a renewed attack during the spring and summer.  "We know it will not be easy," he said.* "We know it will involve casualties, but Canada has not shrunk from these kinds of responsibilities before." * ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Feb 2007)

Here, reproduced from yesterday’s _Globe and Mail_ under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is a ‘commentary’ by former CDSS, Gen (ret’d) Paul Manson:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070216.wcomanson16/BNStory/specialComment/home 


> The Taliban are overrated
> 
> PAUL MANSON
> 
> ...



Two thousand suicide bombers, General Manson says, “will not win many hearts and minds.”  

I’m not so sure.

The suicide bomber is not a completely new phenomenon and experience says that this for of highly ritualized _sacrifice_ resonates in some cultures.  It did for the early Christians; it did in Japan in the 20th century as it has and apparently continues to do in many Islamic societies.  Simple acts of _sacrifice_ or martyrdom can, I think have a profound effect on people who are deeply connected to their religious beliefs – as few of us in 21st century Canada are.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (18 Feb 2007)

Piper said:
			
		

> Stop the eradication.
> 
> We buy the poppy crop. Then we buy the next one. And the next one. Then, for the next one, we say 'we'll buy the NEXT one but only if you plant these seeds'. The then we buy the next crop of wheat or whatever. And the next, and the next and the next .
> 
> ...



You're forgetting that many farmers turn to Poppy crop because it is the easiest and cheapest to grow with the most payback. In the harsh terrain of many areas of Afghanistan, some farms cannot grow any other crop but Poppies! What needs to be done is the agriculture in Afghanistan needs to be supported, with funding given to farmers for equipment and knowledge so they actually can grow other crops instead of Poppy.


----------



## TCBF (18 Feb 2007)

"...the agriculture in Afghanistan needs to be supported, with funding given to farmers for equipment and knowledge so they actually can grow other crops instead of Poppy."

- They'll grow whatever the men with the AK-47s tell them to grow, and so would you.


----------



## rmacqueen (18 Feb 2007)

PAT-Platoon said:
			
		

> You're forgetting that many farmers turn to Poppy crop because it is the easiest and cheapest to grow with the most payback. In the harsh terrain of many areas of Afghanistan, some farms cannot grow any other crop but Poppies! What needs to be done is the agriculture in Afghanistan needs to be supported, with funding given to farmers for equipment and knowledge so they actually can grow other crops instead of Poppy.


The other option is a legalized poppy crop.  Many pharmaceutical companies buy poppies to create morphine for medical use with Australia, France and Spain being three of the largest producers in the world.  Afghanistan has the potential, with the help of western countries, to become a major exporter of *licit* opium.  Illegal poppy farming is flourishing because it gives your average Afghan farmer and income stream.    It is a product that is in demand with a distribution network already in place.  Supply them with the means to grow medicinal poppies and a distribution network to sell them and I have no doubt that they would be willing to switch.  After all, the farmers are not the ones reaping the huge profits from illegal opium, they are just trying to make a living.


----------



## McG (18 Feb 2007)

> NATO vows to take initiative in Afghanistan
> Updated Sun. Feb. 18 2007 4:38 PM ET
> Canadian Press
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070218/nato_afghanistan_070218/20070218?hub=World


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Feb 2007)

From EVERYONE's favourite party on this site  ;D - shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Liberals back Afghan mission until 2009*
Campbell Clark, Globe & Mail, 21 Feb 07
Article Link

The federal Liberals will support Canada's NATO mission remaining in southern Afghanistan until 2009 but call for another country to take over afterward, according to sources in the party.

Split between hawks and doves, Stéphane Dion's opposition party has hammered out its long-promised common-ground position that includes signalling to allies that Canada will give up the leadership of the Kandahar-based NATO mission at the end of its current tour, two years from now.

When he took the reins of the Liberal Party in December, Mr. Dion said he would have little patience for a rising Canadian death toll unless the mission achieved better results. But he also faced a faction of MPs, including deputy leader Michael Ignatieff, who adamantly oppose early withdrawal.

Tomorrow, Mr. Dion will deliver an address in Montreal outlining his party's new position. Liberal sources said the key elements have been hammered out in meetings of MPs over several weeks.

Canadian troops moved from Kabul, the Afghan capital, to the more dangerous Kandahar province at the beginning of 2006, where a reconstituted Taliban has conducted a series of bloody offensives. Forty-three Canadians have been killed since the Canadian military deployed to Afghanistan in early 2002.

Last spring, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper extended the mission, initiated by the previous Liberal government, to February 2009. But some candidates then running for the Liberal leadership, including Mr. Dion, suggested Canada might consider withdrawing sooner.

Now, the Liberals have decided to back the current Kandahar mission until the end of that current deployment, hoping to avoid criticisms that they would abandon a Canadian international commitment.

They will also argue that the mission is misguided and losing support from Afghans, that the West should change its approach and that Canada should tell NATO to find another country to take over the mission in 2009.

However, one Liberal said that does not mean Mr. Dion will rule out a possible future role for Canadian troops in other parts of Afghanistan.

That position will allow the Liberals to criticize the Conservative government on its conduct of the Afghan mission, but might also reduce its impact as an issue differentiating the two parties in an election campaign. Now only the NDP is calling for early withdrawal.

In addition, the Liberals will propose changing Canada's approach to Afghanistan, including a bigger commitment to development aid, political efforts aimed at broadening the support of the Afghan government and combatting corruption, and dealing with the illegal opium-poppy crop that helps finance the Taliban.

The Liberals say public support for the mission is waning because the Conservatives have focused Canada's role too much on military efforts and not enough on diplomacy and development aid. The Conservative government has insisted it is doing both, but that it is impossible to deliver aid without securing a strife-torn region.

Many experts have recently called for a major increase in both troops and aid. In January, the United States and Britain announced increases in their troop contingents in the country, and U.S. President George W. Bush said he would seek an additional $10.6-billion over two years.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2007)

Maybe M. Dion got smart and paid heed to Ruxted's "First things first" article.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Feb 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Two thousand suicide bombers, General Manson says, “will not win many hearts and minds.”
> 
> I’m not so sure.
> 
> The suicide bomber is not a completely new phenomenon and experience says that this for of highly ritualized _sacrifice_ resonates in some cultures.  It did for the early Christians; it did in Japan in the 20th century as it has and apparently continues to do in many Islamic societies.  Simple acts of _sacrifice_ or martyrdom can, I think have a profound effect on people who are deeply connected to their religious beliefs – as few of us in 21st century Canada are.



I'll believe it when there are 2000 splat marks.  It's pretty easy to chime off with numbers like that.  If they really had that many motivated individuals, they would put a rifle in their hands and use them as troops, not cannon fodder.  IMO.


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Feb 2007)

A post at _The Torch_:

Bring back the Iltis
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/02/bring-back-iltis.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Feb 2007)

I wonder if our media will notice this major development:

Afstan: ISAF fighting forces to be up 7,300/7,300
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/02/afstan-isaf-fighting-forces-to-be-up.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (27 Feb 2007)

The ACM are cutting out the hearts and minds of the people who may support NATO and the rebuilding effort, which might work in the short term but perhaps not so well in the longer term:

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/btFrameset.php?URL=http://hallsofmacadamia.blogspot.com/2007/02/kill-em-all.html&title=Kill%20em%20all...



> *Kill em all...*
> 
> Let Allah sort em out...
> 
> ...





> *Taliban launch violent purge
> Insurgents blame paid informants for increasingly accurate NATO strikes*
> 
> GRAEME SMITH
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Feb 2007)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070228.wxcommit28/BNStory?cid=al_gam_globeedge 


> NATO off course, report concludes
> 
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> ...



I think most Army.ca members understand that the Taliban ≠ al Qaeda nor are the insurgents in Afghanistan 100% Taliban or, therefore, al Qaeda.  At a point in its ‘life’ the Taliban was a _political_ movement – based, if I’m correct, as its name implies upon students.  The Taliban reflects a ‘legitimate’ aspect of Afghan society – a conservative, religious aspect, to be sure, but legitimate all the same.

I, personally, think that Dr. Smith and others continue to misunderstand and misrepresent the reason for the mission in Afghanistan and, consequentially, the force requirements.  As others – with far more and better knowledge than I – have pointed out: we are not there to conquer Afghanistan, this is not 1880 or even 1980, and, therefore, we do not need 500,000 soldiers.  We are there to help the properly elected government of Afghanistan assert its mandate over all of the country and, simultaneously, to provide much needed aid to a poor country which has been ruined by decades of war.  A force of a few tens of thousands – and, to be sure a few thousand more than we have now – ought to be sufficient if we can provide real, material help to the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Mar 2007)

This Taliban purge of “spies” remind me of the same attempt by the Communist Party of Malaysia to deal with the double agents planted by the British, in the end the purges killed far more people than the British had spies and weakened their organization, plus missed most of the real spies. Hopefully this purge will create bad blood, cause them to stop communicating with each other and start weakening their chain of command.


----------



## GAP (1 Mar 2007)

NATO off course, report concludes
GLORIA GALLOWAY  From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Article Link

OTTAWA — A former Canadian ambassador to NATO says the war in Afghanistan cannot be won militarily and it will require negotiation with the Taliban to bring an end to the conflict.

Gordon Smith, who was Canada's NATO ambassador between 1985 and 1990, and a team of experts from across Canada will release a report tomorrow that says the current NATO policies are not on course to achieve the objectives of peace and stability in the country, "even within a period of 10 years."

Dr. Smith, who is also a former deputy minister of Foreign Affairs and is now director of the Centre for Global Studies at the University of Victoria, says recent announcements that will bring NATO's troop complement in Afghanistan to 37,000 will have little impact.

"One of the experts that we asked about how many troops would be needed for a military victory said, 'Oh, maybe half a million.' So adding a couple of thousand is wonderful but it doesn't do anything."
More on link


----------



## Teflon (1 Mar 2007)

> "One of the experts that we asked about how many troops would be needed for a military victory said, 'Oh, maybe half a million.' So adding a couple of thousand is wonderful but it doesn't do anything."



Now there's a very analytical responce! Based on years of experience at the craps table no doubt!


----------



## seamus (1 Mar 2007)

The amount of troops on the ground would be sufficient, but due to the fact most of them are not involved. This leads to the fact a minority of the troops do most of the fighting. With the numbers they are stating that are needed, there will still only be the same number of NATO soldiers doing the fighting.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Mar 2007)

I have read (unconfirmed) reports from various sources in the Middle East which suggest that the PLO, Hammas, Hezbollah, etc, etc have executed far more spies, informers and other assorted 'traitors' than Israel has ever had on the payrolls.  It was reported that Israel's relatively few but well placed agents actually initiated several witch hunts which had severe impacts on the Arab movements.


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Mar 2007)

What Mr Smith himself published today (also in "Sandbox" topic) seems not unreasonable, and bears little resemblance to the _Globe's_ headline for Ms. Galloway's piece; and I wonder why the material on the (very impressive) Commons committee appearance by the Canadians from the UN and NATO was buried at the end of Ms Galloway's piece.  At least the _Ottawa Citizen_ gave the appearance a full story
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=2182d6f7-51d6-432e-a0d0-4e3713875ea6&k=78228

and the _Embassy_ newsweekly article gives even more substance (though a snarky headline):
http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/february/28/afghanistan/

It's not unthinkable to bring the Taliban inside the tent
Globe and Mail,  March 1, 2007, By GORDON SMITH
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070301/COAFGHAN01/Comment/comment/comment/2/2/4/



> Anyone who thinks the issue is simply one of supporting our troops in Afghanistan as they fight bravely to bring peace to that unfortunate country doesn't get it. Nor does someone who thinks our military ought to leave now, or even in 2009, with Canada turning its focus to development assistance.
> 
> I have nothing but admiration for our troops. As a behind-the-scenes drafter of a defence white paper and a former ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, I know the military and am proud of the great job it is doing.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Mar 2007)

Babbling Brooks rips CP over a story
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/01/hrc-watchdog-070301.html

on the new Afghan prisoner agreement:

Let's talk about timelines
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/03/lets-talk-about-timelines.html



> Gotta love straight-up news stories, written without a hint of misplaced editorializing...or blog post written without a hint of sarcasm:
> 
> "The Kandahar office of Afghanistan's human rights commission has agreed to act as a watchdog for detainees captured by Canadians to ensure that valid complaints of abuse are investigated, the Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Weinie (1 Mar 2007)

"Do as I say, and there will be peace in our time." stated Gordon Smith. (or Neville,  as he is remembered so fondly by his buds at DFAIT)


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Mar 2007)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/01/nato-negotiations.html

Another so-called expert on COIN waddles in with his opinion.  Sheesh.  We need more of these racist bastards.  Witness this statement:

Smith, deputy minister of foreign affairs from 1994 to 1997, said negotiating with the Taliban is an unpleasant task but he believes it has to be done.
"One has to explore the political solutions, difficult and unpleasant though they may be. I don't have a higher regard for the Taliban than anybody else, but *I don't think there is any other alternative but to talk to them*."

So, remember people that the basis for negotiations is to meet halfway.  So, in other words, we have to make concessions to them for them to make concessions to us.
"Okay, Mullah Omar, it is agreed.  You reduce your beheadings of journalists, school teachers and doctors by 50%, and we'll ensure that we give our patrol schedule to the corrupt members of the Afghan police when we enter your districts"

This idiot, "Mr." Smith, would have us talk to the Taliban.  Why doesn't Mr Smith talk to the citizens of Khandahar, Kabul and Bagram and ask them what THEY want, instead of crying that his diaper is full and that his rubber sheets are getting slippery?  Heck, let's send HIM over!!!


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Mar 2007)

Here, straight from the horse's mouth....

*NATO Needs to Change Course in Afghanistan*
Centre for Global Studies, University of Victoria, 1 Mar 07
News Release - Full report (29pg 364KB .pdf)

March 1, 2007 – Calgary, AB – In order to achieve a representative government and a self-sustaining peace for Afghanistan, NATO may have to find a way of negotiating with elements of the Taliban says a new study released today by the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute. The study, prepared by Gordon Smith, Director of the Centre for Global Studies at the University of Victoria with a small team of experts from across Canada, also questions whether there is adequate co-ordination in Afghanistan between military activities and civilian relief in the zones of conflict in the South.

“The Canadian military and civilians have made an extraordinary contribution,” acknowledges Smith, “but the overall level of effort—much lower than in the Balkans, for example—being expended by NATO and other members of the international community is insufficient for the task. There is doubt that NATO will be able to meet its objectives to provide the Afghan people with a stable life after decades of conflict, destruction and poverty.”

The report details how the Taliban are deeply entrenched in Afghanistan and are organizing themselves for a new offensive, in part because of assistance flowing in from Pakistan. There are also signs al-Qa’ida is attempting to reconstitute itself in Pakistan. “Meeting NATO objectives requires some form of political resolution within Afghanistan,” says Smith. “It also requires Pakistan playing a more positive role by facilitating negotiations with those Talibs not determined to fight to the bitter end.”

Smith suggests that the current poppy eradication campaign isn’t working and that the crop should be sold through a marketing board which would be processed for medicinal purposes.

Smith, a former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Ambassador to NATO, concludes that if NATO fails in Afghanistan this could have dire consequences for the Alliance.

The complete report Canada in Afghanistan: Is it Working? is available online at www.cdfai.org.

CDFAI is a “think tank” pursuing authoritative research and new ideas aimed at ensuring Canada has a respected and influential voice in the international arena.

-30-

For more information contact:

Gordon Smith
Executive Director, Centre for Global Studies
University of Victoria, CDFAI Advisory Council Member
250.472.4726 (office)
250.704.9052 (cell)
gssmith@uvic.ca


----------



## Flip (2 Mar 2007)

What bugged me more was the reader commentary attached.

If I comment here I'm preaching to the choir.

When I commented there I was in a distinct minority.

The gist was "If we just make peace everything will work out".

I disagreed.


----------



## McG (2 Mar 2007)

> NATO should talk to Taliban because military victory impossible: report
> Last Updated: Thursday, March 1, 2007 | 12:48 PM ET
> CBC News
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/03/01/nato-negotiations.html
> ...


NATO should not be doing this negotiation.  NATO is in Afghanistan at the request of the Afghan government and with the approval of the UN.  NATO is helping to build the security and develop the government institutions.  NATO is not in the country to dictate important decisions to the government.  Should NATO encourage negations?  If it makes sense, then yes.  It might even be fair to tell the Afghan government that continued support is dependant on negotiation.  However, the moment that NATO becomes the negotiator, then we have taken away the sovereignty of the Afghan people.



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Smith suggests that the current poppy eradication campaign isn’t working and that the crop should be sold through a marketing board which would be processed for medicinal purposes.


Again, this is an Afghan initiative and not a NATO activity.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Mar 2007)

+1 MCG

Afghanistan is a sovereign country and the CF and NATO are there at their sufferance, with the support of the international community.  The decisions on how to deal with their people have to be their's.

This is not about creating a UN or NATO or even a Canadian or DFAIT empire.  This can not be about imposing solutions.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Mar 2007)

They neglect to mention that the Afghan Government has held talks with Taliban, which failed, they have an amnesty program in place, routinely deal with low and mid level Taliban. Why should NATO talk to the Taliban, NATO can not make deals on behalf of the Afghan Government and the closest "deal" they had with the Taliban failed when the Taliban invaded a town against the wishes of the local government. NATO should continue to "talk" to the Taliban with their 105,25 & 155mm communications devices and save the diplomacy for Kabul.


----------



## observor 69 (5 Mar 2007)

Memo to Canada: Might won't win in Afghanistan

Pakistanis advise Ottawa to open backdoor channels with resistance, notes Haroon Siddiqui

Mar 04, 2007 04:30 AM 
Haroon Siddiqui 

BRUSSELS–As Canadian and other NATO troops in Afghanistan nervously await the widely expected Taliban spring offensive, there are two distinct views on what the best course is for the future.

Here at the headquarters of NATO, as well as the European Commission, the consensus – hope, really – is that the allied troops can hold off the Taliban and buy the time needed to establish the security to do the development work to win over the Afghans in the troubled south.

It is this hope that Canada and the other allies are echoing.

The other view, found principally in Pakistan, is that there is no military solution, certainly not without a massive infusion of troops, for many years – two commitments that few or no allies are prepared to make. 

This assessment goes beyond the familiar formulation that no foreigners have ever conquered Afghanistan; not Alexander the Great in 4th century B.C., not the British in the 19th century, not the Soviets in the 1980s. 

The Pakistanis believe the allies did have a chance to get it right after toppling the Taliban in 2001 but have since blown it, and are now further hobbled by:

Blindly backing the corrupt, incompetent and unpopular government of Hamid Karzai.

Failing to distinguish between Al Qaeda, which has global terrorist designs, and the Taliban, which is fighting against the foreign presence in Afghanistan and for a greater share of power for fellow Pushtuns, who are 60 per cent of the population but are under-represented in Karzai's Kabul.
The Taliban are appealing to Afghan nationalism and financing their "jihad" from a cut of the $4 billion a year opium trade. 

On a tour of Pakistan, I was surprised by how vehemently President Pervez Musharraf and his administration are attacking NATO's over-reliance on military tactics. 

They are also angry at being blamed for the allied failure in Afghanistan. 

A Western diplomat in Islamabad told me that "there's huge resentment here about Western criticism" that Pakistan is harbouring the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that the Pakistani army's Inter-Services Intelligence unit may be covertly helping them.

"I have seen nothing that'd indicate an ISI involvement," he said. 

"They are in no mood to listen to Western lectures."

No sooner had Dick Cheney visited Musharraf last week than the latter snapped publicly: "Pakistan does not take dictation from any side."

Pakistan has also started taking decisions in its own interest, such as doing deals with tribal groups in South and North Waziristan bordering Afghanistan.

Whatever their impact on the Afghan war, the accords did help reduce attacks on Pakistani soldiers and also the public anger.

This will, no doubt, help Musharraf win the election this year for a second five-year term. 

These developments have international significance. 

While the Pakistani public has been anti-American, Musharraf has been a staunch U.S. ally. But now he, too, is distancing himself from Washington. 

NATO is thus losing its one indispensable ally in the war in Afghanistan. 

Under the circumstances, I asked some people what advice they had for Canada. 

Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan, spokesperson for Musharraf: 

"If you think you can eliminate the Taliban, look at the results so far. Rethink your strategy."

Tariq Azim, information minister: 

"Is your role to blindly go on with a policy that has clearly failed? Canada has always had independent thinking."

Owais Ahmad Ghani, governor of Baluchistan province:

"The foreign presence in Afghanistan was initially popular. But due to indiscriminate bombings and other mistakes, you've lost the high ground and turned the public against you. The current policy will continue to radicalize society and increase violence. There's no military solution, take it from me – I am a tribal person. 

"Initiate backdoor political and diplomatic moves with the resistance groups who are not hard-core Taliban. Develop a level of accommodation. 

"Then introduce a development package, and purchase all the opium for pharmaceutical purposes. Deny the land for opium cultivation. Unless you stop the narcotics, the Taliban won't come to the table."

These sentiments partly echo those of Stéphane Dion, who has said: "The Taliban will not be defeated solely through the barrel of a gun." And of German Defence Minister Franz-Josef Jung, who said: "I do not think it's right to talk about more and more military means."

To sum up: Stay in Afghanistan but change course. 

The respite Canada needs from violence to do the good deeds it wants to do is not likely to come from more military operations.

Throwing another $200 million at humanitarian work, as Stephen Harper just has, may soften his image at home, but not do much in Afghanistan without a fundamental shift in thinking and tactics.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haroon Siddiqui appears Thursday and Sunday. hsiddiq@thestar.ca.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/187723


Just before the flames start let me repeat he did say "To sum up: Stay in Afghanistan but change course. "


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Mar 2007)

So NATO "hopes" for success?  How about Pakistan "hopes" there is no military solution?  How about the ISI "hopes" that they can convince Canada to change strategy?  How about the Taliban "hope" that Karzai can be isolated as corrupt? How about Pervez "hopes" that all his troubles will disappear overnight?...........

Clockwise or Counter-Clockwise and increase the speed of rotation.


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Mar 2007)

As for Haroon the Magnificent, a letter sent to the _Star_ March 4 but not published:



> Haroon Siddiqui writes of "...the familiar formulation that no foreigners have ever conquered Afghanistan; not Alexander the Great in 4th century B.C., not the British in the 19th century, not the Soviets in the 1980s."  That formulation is dead wrong.  The unconquerable Afghans are a myth of recent vintage.
> 
> Alexander the Great conquered the area now known as Afghanistan, and his successors ruled for around three centuries.  For most of its history the area was ruled by whoever was ruling in Persia/Iran and was part of what is called Greater Khorasan.  Genghis Khan successfully conquered the country, as did subsequent Turkic invaders such as Tamerlane and his descendant Babur, who went on to found the Moghul Empire in northern India.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (5 Mar 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So NATO "hopes" for success?  How about Pakistan "hopes" there is no military solution?  How about the ISI "hopes" that they can convince Canada to change strategy?  How about the Taliban "hope" that Karzai can be isolated as corrupt? How about Pervez "hopes" that all his troubles will disappear overnight?...........
> 
> Clockwise or Counter-Clockwise and increase the speed of rotation.



The reason I posted this article is because I thought the author did a good job of describing the challenges ISAF faces and some possible solutions.
Other than "stay the course" what options would you offer?  Or do you think there are no problems and no need to look at other options?
And call me naive but I don't follow your last sentence?


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Mar 2007)

_Star_ just phoned and are considering letter above for publication.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Mar 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> The reason I posted this article is because I thought the author did a good job of describing the challenges ISAF faces and some possible solutions.
> Other than "stay the course" what options would you offer?  Or do you think there are no problems and no need to look at other options?
> And call me naive but I don't follow your last sentence?



Sorry BG - no personal attacks meant.  Frustration level rising.

Last sentence was an allusion to "spin".  The same information presented from a different perspective to support an alternate reality.

Baldly put I think "staying the course" is the ONLY option.  Tactics and stratagems need to be constantly adjusted as the enemy adjusts to the last round.  I am starting to like the analogy of a never ending game of "rock, paper, scissors" more and more.  Victory or defeat in any given round is the result of assymetry (paper vs rock).  A symmetrical response (rock vs rock) demands a do-over as nobody wins. The issue is how long can you play before you get tired.  We have to play longer than the other guy.

The article stated that NATO planned for success but denigrated that planning as mere "hope".

My counter-point is that it is in Pakistan's interest, and the interests of many others that a military solution be demonstrated as failing.  Right now there is only one military power and if that capability can be removed from it then all nations are equal  ...... to the benefit of some with whom I have philosophical differences.  Pakistan "hopes" there is no military solution but "fears" there is one.

Likewise the ISI will be pulling all possible levers to bring about the failure of the mission and the downfall of the Karzai government, not to mention the failure of Indian influence in the area.  They "hope" that they can get Canada back to the pre-Harper (pre-Graham?) position and leave the US isolated.  

Similarly the Taliban "hope" that they can stigmatize Karzai as corrupt, at least in the western public opinion, to hasten western withdrawal and improve their chances of regaining their place.  They "fear" that the westerners will stick around to support Karzai.  As far as the locals are concerned, they may or may not see Karzai as corrupt but I would be willing to bet that they would rather have a predictable corrupt government that they can plan around than a life of insecurity.

Finally, Pervez "hopes" that he can go back to the world of pre-2001 where he only had to balance the militiary, the ISI, the modernists, the Islamists and the separatists.  Now he has to balance America as well.  He "fears" that one of these days the military, the ISI, this Islamists or the separatists are going to succeed in blowing him up.

Nobody has a message without an agenda.

If we mean what we say then "Staying the Course" is the only option.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2007)

An interesting idea from Mesopotamia West:

http://mesopotamiawest.blogspot.com/



> *The Solution for Afghanistan*
> 
> It's becoming clear in Afghanistan -- as it was in VietNam, Burma and the Boer War -- civilians aren't civilians in an insurrection. Any clear-headed view of the actual events recently in Afghanistan show the Taliban uses civilian 'safe houses' in which to disappear into the civil population.
> 
> ...


----------



## 3rd Herd (6 Mar 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> An interesting idea from Mesopotamia West:
> 
> http://mesopotamiawest.blogspot.com/



Examples to be found in the realm of 20th century history are exemplified by such units as the "Battalion of Death", a female unit which 'went over the top' on July 8, 1917. To the "Peshmerga Force for Women", part of a Kurdish militia group defending Iraqi Kurdistan. But in "Women in Combat" by Lieutenant Colonel Edd D. Wheeler an interesting conclusion is explained, 

"I AM NOT certain, but I do not believe that men are jealously protective of their role as combatants. Combat is not something to be coveted. Certainly, the military owes every judicious consideration to those women who, for whatever reason, seek to become combat participants. Perhaps it would not be chauvinistic to say that we owe to them almost as much consideration as we do collectively to those who would be assigned to fight at their left and right, almost as much consideration as must be given to the legions of nonparticipants who stand to the rear and whose lives may be affected irrevocably by the outcome."





Source:
The Petrograd Women's Battalion of Death
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/20th_century_warfare/id30.htm

Harding, Luke."Time for revenge: Deep in northern Iraq, there are hundreds of women who are desperate for war."
The Guardian . Friday February 28, 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,904610,00.html

Wheeler, Edd D. Lieutenant Colonel "Women in Combat, a demurrer". Air University Review, November-December 1978


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2007)

posted on Celestial Junk, this tracks with some of the behaviour I have started to see as well:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/



> 16 March 2007
> *Think Like a Taliban*
> 
> I sit with my fellow mujahedeen in the Pakistani Madrassa. We’ve been driven out of Helmand by the Christians. This past summer, we thought we were well prepared … Allah knows that the Russians paid dearly in the same limestone ditches and dry irrigation canals. But in 2006 all we managed was to kill a couple dozen crusaders … while their artillery, airplanes, and infantry tore us up. Our young recruits from Pakistan panicked and were martyred either where they lay or while they fled … Allah received them by the hundreds. And worse yet, the population … our own people … remained neutral.
> ...


----------



## Quag (17 Mar 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> posted on Celestial Junk, this tracks with some of the behaviour I have started to see as well:
> 
> http://cjunk.blogspot.com/



Does anybody have a more official source of where that came from?  I would really like to use it for my debate just as added flavour, but need a more official source to document it with.

Thanks in advance


----------



## FuzzyLogic (17 Mar 2007)

Quag said:
			
		

> Does anybody have a more official source of where that came from?  I would really like to use it for my debate just as added flavour, but need a more official source to document it with.
> 
> Thanks in advance



The Cjunk piece is a parody ... but very close to the truth.  It's intended to make folks think outside the box ... Think Like a Taliban.


----------



## Quag (17 Mar 2007)

Oh haha! I should have seen that.  I guess my brain is overloaded right now trying to get stuff for a debate.

*Shakes head at own self*


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Mar 2007)

Terrible drivel from Jim Travesty of the _Crvena Zvezda_--excerpts:

Putting a swagger into foreign policy
Under Stephen Harper's watch, Canada's top military man has helped refashion our approach to international affairs
http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/192963


> ...
> Decades ago, Lester Pearson famously commented: "Foreign policy is merely domestic policy with its hat on." Now, when Canadians go abroad they are more likely to wear a helmet.
> 
> No longer the good-scout peacekeeper, there's new toughness and even some swagger in the way Harper's government's and Hillier's troops walk through the global village. It was obvious last summer when the Prime Minister abandoned Canada's traditional neutrality and nuances to take one side in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. It is even more evident in Afghanistan where reconstruction is the rhetorical sugar coating on a bitter conflict.
> ...



And it's the CDS' fault:



> Promoted past more cautious rivals in 2005 by then-Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, Hillier is now the most visible member of the elite group helping Stephen Harper transform this country's international image. They are doing a remarkable job.



Bollocks.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Mar 2007)

I suppose what angers me about Mr Travers' column is his putting it all in political context rather than making any attempt to assess whether or not the Afghanistan mission has value--or realism--in itself.  Plus the clear anti-Americanism, economy with the truth, wrong facts, and inability to present realistic alternatives.  The essence of the piece is that Canadian interests should be by definiton different from American ones.  Nonsense.  Or if they are not we should still make a point of finding differences in some crazed effort to assert some sort of national identity.

Identity comes from action in support of principle, not piffling verbiage intended to discredit (a hardly perfect) government and a (very good) military leader.

Pshaw.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Mar 2007)

Silliness from Norman Spector in the _Globe and Mail_ today:

Psst -- here's why we're really in Afghanistan
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/globe282.htm



> For some time, I've been waiting for someone to fess up to the true reason Canadian troops are in Afghanistan. It isn't to build schools. Nor is it to promote women's rights. The reason we are in Afghanistan is oil...
> 
> It also must be said that Mr. Harper's government has been fairly effective in clouding the issue, thanks to much focus-group testing and public-opinion polling. It's been some months since the Prime Minister has referred to the “war on terror,” and I don't believe the term “Islamo-fascism” has ever crossed his lips. Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Peter MacKay increasingly sounds and acts as though he's extended his responsibilities for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. (Yes, that's its official name.) Stating that oil is the reason Canadian troops are in that country doesn't make their presence illegal or even illegitimate, and it's no reason not to root for our side. But Canadians have a right to know why their sons and daughters face death and dismemberment in a dirty war against an enemy that relishes counterstrikes in which civilians are killed. The enemy's tactics include suicide bombers, ours include construction — which is designed to win hearts and minds and ensure that neither Osama bin Laden nor his successors ever again find sanctuary there.
> 
> Doubt the proposition that we're in Afghanistan because of oil? Just ask yourself if Washington would give a fig whether Osama bin Laden or King Abdullah were ruling Saudi Arabia if that country's main export were tomatoes. Does anyone believe the United States would have maintained its large military and diplomatic footprint in the Mideast and the Persian Gulf — ever since the British pulled back in the 1940s — if it weren't for the large reservoirs of oil? And, if there was no oil and less U.S. presence in that part of the world, is there any reason to believe that Mr. bin Laden would have declared “war” on Bill Clinton's America in a 1998 fatwa, or that 2,972 people would have been killed on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001?



A letter just sent to the _Globe_:



> Norman Spector writes in his column, "Psst — here's why we're really in Afghanistan (March 19)", that "The reason we are in Afghanistan is oil."  Unless Mr Spector is being ironical--and I see no reason to think that from the piece--he is being nonsensical.  Afghanistan's oil reserves are estimated at some 100 million barrels.  Kazakhstan, the major oil source in central Asia, produced approximately 1.29 million barrels per day in 2005.  In other words, Kazakhstan pumps Afghanistan's total oil reserves in around 80 days.  The amount of oil in Afghanistan is miniscule in global terms.
> 
> There is also no need for Afghanistan as a pipeline route for central Asian oil.  Kazakh oil is exported via Russia and to China.  It will now be shipped, following an agreement with Azerbaijan last year, across the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan and onward via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.  This pipeline ends at the eastern Mediterranean in Turkey.  Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, which have much smaller oil reserves than Kazakhstan, equally have no need for any Afghan pipeline should they ever become major oil exporters.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Mar 2007)

Actually Mr Spector was being too clever by half (in my view, and I've been accused of that too).   He has confirmed to me in personal communications that his message was that US interests in middle east oil are ultimately the major cause of al Qaeda terrorism, and that we thus have ultimately, because of
oil, become involved in the Afghan aspect of the GWOT--even though there is
no Afghan oil worth mentioning.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Mar 2007)

I guess that the US being culturally based on Christianity, democracy, individual freedoms plays no part either? So it ok to mention that supplying the worlds largest economy is a factor in all of their decisions, but not any other factors? If he crafted his arguments around Iraq and US involvement there. I could live with the article. But he has tried to imply by innuendo that we are there at our master bidding who is there because of oil. He is a weasel who is squirming to get out of the bind his words have put him in.


----------



## McG (23 Mar 2007)

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=4ebc3a98-2384-4b11-b2f9-4aec4681780f&k=14840


> Building government key to securing Afghanistan, UN official says
> Richard Foot, CanWest News Service
> Published: Friday, March 23, 2007
> 
> ...



Asside from Mr Koenigs' suggestion that we don't see the importance of developing local government, I don't disagree with any of the observations.  On roto 1, we understood the importance of developing the local governments.  We also knew we had to do our part to get the Afghans taking-up more & more of the work for themselves.  I could be wrong, but I doubt that we've forgotten the importance of the local governance factor.  Really, this UN official is only telling us what we already know.


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Mar 2007)

It will take quite some time for truly effective national government to come into being, and foreigners can only push so hard. Meanwhile, there must be security provided for that government's efforts to expand its sway--security that in the end will have to be provided by Afghan forces. But that too will take quite some time.

This is not encouraging in that context:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15135



> A majority of people in Britain would like their country’s soldiers currently deployed in Afghanistan to be brought home soon, according to a poll by YouGov released by the Sunday Times. 53 per cent of respondents believe the troops are serving no useful purpose and should be withdrawn.
> 
> Conversely, 30 per cent of respondents consider British soldiers should stay in Afghanistan until the job is done, and 16 per cent are undecided...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Port Hope (28 Mar 2007)

In regards to our current effort in Afghanistan (and our American friends in Iraq), I recommend Alistair Hornes' book "A Savage War of Peace".  It has to do with the French war in Algeria.  It points out the danger of adopting the tactics of your enemy (torture, execution of prisoners, theft, rape and indiscrimnate killings).  If we adopt the tactics of our enemies, we could alienate those in Afghanistan who are in the middle.  They may or may not support our cause depending on our interaction with them.  Also, we risk losing our own souls if adopt the brutal tactics of the Taliban.  

If a man perceives that the regular rules of combat and humanity have been suspended, there is no way for him to make a separate compartment in his own psyche.  If it is okay to steal from people that we are searching, then it is certainly okay to steal from other folks too, depending on the situation.  The French soldiers who tortured and killed became the ones who wanted to assassinate DeGaulle.  Everything was in play.  

The book can be boring at times with details of French politicians, of whom we don't know or care but the overall message is this:  occupying a country is a sloppy business.


----------



## 3rd Herd (28 Mar 2007)

Port Hope said:
			
		

> In regards to our current effort in Afghanistan (and our American friends in Iraq), I recommend Alistair Hornes' book "A Savage War of Peace".  It has to do with the French war in Algeria.  It points out the danger of adopting the tactics of your enemy (torture, execution of prisoners, theft, rape and indiscrimnate killings).  If we adopt the tactics of our enemies, we could alienate those in Afghanistan who are in the middle.  They may or may not support our cause depending on our interaction with them.  Also, we risk losing our own souls if adopt the brutal tactics of the Taliban.
> 
> If a man perceives that the regular rules of combat and humanity have been suspended, there is no way for him to make a separate compartment in his own psyche.  If it is okay to steal from people that we are searching, then it is certainly okay to steal from other folks too, depending on the situation.  The French soldiers who tortured and killed became the ones who wanted to assassinate DeGaulle.  Everything was in play.
> 
> The book can be boring at times with details of French politicians, of whom we don't know or care but the overall message is this:  occupying a country is a sloppy business.



Me thinks you posted in the wrong forum. Military Literature would have been a better choice. Here is part of the review of the book by the Washington Post:

"To be sure, there are huge differences between the two wars. Most notably, the United States  isn't a colonial power in Iraq, seeking to maintain a presence of troops and settlers as long as possible. Rather, in Iraq,  victory would consist of getting U.S. personnel out while leaving behind a relatively friendly, open, stable and independent government. And while elements of the French military tried to assassinate French President Charles de Gaulle for pulling out from what he termed 'a bottomless quagmire,' there is little fear that U.S. officers will go down that rebellious road."

"But there are numerous suggestive parallels — mainly relating to conventional Western militaries fighting primarily urban insurgencies in Arab cultures while support for their wars dwindles back home and while the insurgents hope to outlast their better-armed opponents. As such, anyone interested in Iraq  should read this book immediately." 


Edit to add source: Thomas E. Ricks, a Washington Post military correspondent who has reported frequently from Iraq, is the author of 'Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq.'" Reviewed by Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Book World (Copyright 2006 Washington Post Book World Service/Washington Post Writers Group)


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2007)

"Also, we risk losing our own souls if adopt the brutal tactics of the Taliban. " 

- I read that all the time, but Western civilization amazingly bounces back once a conflict ends.  Just look at Europe today, as compared to 65 years ago.


----------



## GAP (2 Apr 2007)

No easy solutions in Afghanistan
Desperately poor nation lacks money and time to rebuild capability to defend itself from Taliban
Graham Thomson, The Edmonton Journal Published: Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Article Link

KABUL, Afghanistan - To get a better idea of the challenges facing Canada in Afghanistan, you need look no further than the Kabul Military Training Centre. Here, instructors from various coalition countries, including Canada, help prepare Afghan soldiers to protect their homeland.

The latest training battalion, called Kandak 61, has almost 900 new troops ready to graduate and fight the Taliban. The problem is, 15 weeks ago Kandak 61 started out with 1,242 recruits.

More than 300 have simply walked away and not come back. Coalition military officials downplay the issue, saying many of the troops are only a few days overdue or they have left to help their families temporarily. Some were trapped in their home provinces by a landslide, said one official, but they will be back.

"The main problem for me is that for three months I haven't received pay," said recruit Ali Gawhar, 27, through an interpreter. "I'm married and I've got two sons and it's very difficult."

Gawhar hasn't gone AWOL but others in his position have. Gawhar blames his pay problem on careless senior Afghan officers who didn't bother to find out that he was on duty elsewhere in the training centre the day they did a head count. He expects to get paid on graduation day next week or else he says the officers risk angering impatient troops and making even more go AWOL.

However, even if they were paid on time and had brand new weapons, they'd still leave here ill-prepared compared to Canadian troops who get at least 12 months of training before finding themselves at the sharp end of a military operation. Afghan troops get 16 weeks.
More on link


----------



## GAP (4 Apr 2007)

Canada's Role in Afghanistan Will be Reviewed Next Year: O'Connor  
Josh Pringle  Wednesday, April 4, 2007 
Article Link

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is promising Canada will stay in Afghanistan until permanent progress is made. 

In a speech in Montreal, O'Connor said Canadian troops will remain part of the International mission in Afghanistan because of the continued threat posed by the Taliban. 

O'Connor says he noticed that life is returning to normal in villages and towns on his recent visit to Afghanistan, adding "villages appeared more active." 

But O'Connor warned that the "hardcore of the Taliban are determined to undermine the progress being made." 

The Defence Minister says Canada is committed to helping rebuild and re-establish a stable society for the Afghan people. 

Canadian troops are committed to Afghanistan until 2009. 

O'Connor says Canada's participation will be reviewed next year.
More on link


----------



## freedom-now (5 Apr 2007)

Hi,

I tried to read that editorial, but I went to the URL and I could not see it. Can someone please email it to me?


Thanks


----------



## Donut (5 Apr 2007)

worked fine for me   ???


----------



## a_majoor (5 Apr 2007)

Although it would be nice to have unlimited time and training budgets for the Afghan troops, there are real issues of time and resources that need to be taken into account. I also look at the situation through a historical lens: Canadian troops were flung into battle with as little as 30 days training during the Great War, and troops fared little better at the beginning of WW II or the Korean War (including limited equipment, poor administration and untrained leadership.) 

Fortunately, there is such a thing as a learning curve, and given the sort of raw material the ANA has to work with we may soon be wondering how we ever did without them.


----------



## McG (8 Apr 2007)

> Afghanistan: A job half done
> By Lyse Doucet
> BBC Afghanistan analyst
> 
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6205220.stm


----------



## GAP (10 Apr 2007)

This belongs in this thread.

Voices: Afghanistan casualties
 TheStar.com - opinion - Voices: Afghanistan casualties 
April 10, 2007 
Article Link

We asked you whether you think our commitment in Afghanistan worth the price. Here's what you had to say.
We have a choice as a civilized nation; do we let terrorists take over a country or do we try to stop them? Whatever consequences ultimately come from this decision must be accepted as the cost of our choice. 
Sean Doolittle, Mississauga

Stephen Harper owes it to the country to explain plainly what we intend to accomplish in Afghanistan and under what conditions our troops will be brought home. 
William Bedford, Toronto

We cannot get an explanation of our goals so that we may evaluate our progress. We cannot get the truth of what is happening on the ground. 
Allan Eizinas, Simcoe, Ont.

My answer is a question: Would you sooner that we fight them on our soil? 
Don Lowther, Halifax

No, It is not worth the price. What are we doing sending our young men to die for something that is not our business? 
Badet Ellen, Windsor

Why are our troops in Afghanistan to begin with? This was never our war and our troops should never have been sent there. 
Mary Matheson, Toronto

If I say I'm going to do something, then I usually do it. So yes, I believe Canada should remain committed to this cause (without judging the merits of our presence there). 
Virginia Furlong, Pickering

Absolutely it is worth the price. While I agonize over every report about another member of our forces being killed or maimed, I think too of the children who may now have an opportunity for a normal life, Afghan girls who may now receive an education, Afghan women who may now engage in a career if they wish. 
David Carr, Whitby

No. We rushed to help the U.S. in the context of stopping bin Laden and Al Qaeda and we inherited an unwinnable tribal war when the U.S. imperiously moved into Iraq. 
John Ansara, Toronto

The question should be: "Do we Canadians think that the Afghanis deserve the same freedoms that we enjoy?" That's what you're really asking. If we believe that our freedoms are worth fighting for, then how can we deny them to others? 
Andrew Mannie, Barrie

Since "our commitment in Afghanistan" is all about protecting central Asian petroleum for transnational corporations, it may well be worth the "price" (of the oil), but it is definitely not worth the cost (in lost Afghani and Canadian lives). 
Al Eslami, Toronto

We as a free-thinking nation cannot turtle in the face of adversity, run away and hope for the best through "group hugs." 
Brent Williams, New Brunswick

It's estimated 20 million soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice to stop the scourge of Nazi Germany. Was that a too high a price to pay? 
Helena Desouza, Toronto

The families of those serving who have been killed would probably be the ones to ask the question of. For the rest of us, the question is academic. 
Renata Schneider, Toronto

We were warned, we distorted facts to gain public and government approval, we even made some facts up. Now soldiers from every nation are paying the price for hasty decisions made by arrogant, politically self-serving officials. It is certainly not worth the price, but it is a price we are now morally obliged to pay for our ignorance and our arrogance. 
Erica Holloway, Thornhill

Prior to recent PC cash infusions to our armed forces, we had effectively abandoned our defence to the U.S. How then could we refuse a request by the U.S. to at least support the Afghanistan war action? 
Bill Soles, Oro-Medonte, Ont.
More on link


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Apr 2007)

Peaceable Canadians. Who, nous?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_kinsman/20070409.html



> Even though our principal international engagement at the moment is a risky military operation in Afghanistan, this contribution and our sacrifices there are less noticed around the world because of the propensity these days for each country's media to cover only its national contingents and ignore the activity of others.
> 
> Meanwhile, our self-image shares the view others have of us, especially concerning our core role as international "peacekeepers."..
> 
> ...



We must help the Afghans -- but how?
With the deaths of more Canadians, we need to set realistic goals
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=967658f8-1405-48ca-b2e0-aa3b5b43f223



> Rory Stewart does not look like the kind of guy who spent almost six months walking across Afghanistan. His twin sidelocks, his tight, quizzical expression and his long, angular fingers suggest a seminarian more than an adventurer.
> 
> In January 2002, a few weeks after the Taliban was driven from power in Afghanistan, Stewart began a walk from Herat to Kabul. He was told he was crazy; as a foreigner, with money, in winter, he would surely perish.
> 
> ...



But surely if ISAF retreats to the big cities (Kabul, Kandahar, Herat, Mazar-e-Sharif, Jallalabad) that is conceding defeat with the countryside (at least in the south and east) lost.  Will foreigners be willing to stay, in effect forever, in besieged cities dependent on, perhaps increasingly risky, air supply?

On the other hand it is dreaming madly to think that Afstan can in any conceivable period of time be changed into a democracy along western lines with, for just one thing, full rights for women.  Just look east, west, and north.

Books by Mr Stewart:

_Places In Between_
http://www.amazon.ca/Places-Between-Rory-Stewart/dp/0143053302/ref=sr_1_1/701-9840826-9598762?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176247097&sr=1-1

_Prince Of The Marshes_
http://www.amazon.ca/Prince-Marshes-Rory-Stewart/dp/0143052314/ref=sr_1_2/701-9840826-9598762?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176247097&sr=1-2

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Apr 2007)

Two today from the _Crvena Zvezda_:

1) Jim Travesty:
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/202190

What can we achieve?  
This is rapidly becoming Stephen Harper's war and the Prime Minister must start explaining why we are still in Afghanistan



> A less inspiring anniversary is advancing just as Vimy's 90th retreats. Come mid-May, it will be a year since Stephen Harper extended the Afghanistan mission by threatening an election.
> 
> With little time to prepare and after only half-a-dozen hours of shallow debate, a divided Parliament added two years to the Kandahar deployment that within the last five days has claimed eight more lives. Without that extension, Canadians bearing the heaviest of NATO losses would have been out of harm's way two months ago.
> 
> ...



2) Haroon the Magnificent:
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/202191

Where is Afghan mission heading?
Canada should demilitarize the mission as much as possible, seek political reconciliation with the Taliban and stop blaming Pakistan for the insurgency



> What are Canadian soldiers dying for in Afghanistan? The official answer is that (a) they are there so that terrorists don't come here, though the reverse is more likely, and (b) our troops are helping the Afghans get back on their feet.
> 
> The more realistic answer is that (a) Gen. Rick Hillier wanted to prove to the Americans that Canada belonged in the big league, and (b) his first boss, Paul Martin, wanted to please the White House, and, his second, Stephen Harper, is ideologically committed to the failed global doctrine of U.S. President George W. Bush.
> 
> ...



As for "Americanized", Mr Siddiqui might look at these pictures:
http://www.deutsche-welle.de/dw/article/0,2144,2431253,00.html
http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/schaedel-fotos-nazi-emblem_did_13807.html (check picture 2 and further)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,461369,00.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Port Hope (12 Apr 2007)

Woher kommen Sie Denn?


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Apr 2007)

Port Hope: Nicht vom links, überhaupt nicht von dem roten Stern (Crvena Zvezda) .  

In Washington, D.C. geboren, von kanadischen Eltern.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Port Hope (13 Apr 2007)

Ich bin in Kanada geboren (keine deustche Eltern) aber ich habe fast zwei Jahre in Deutschland gewohnt.  Wir koennen immer etwas von unseren deutschen Freuden lernern!


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Apr 2007)

Port Hope said:
			
		

> Ich bin in Kanada geboren (keine deustche Eltern) aber ich habe fast zwei Jahre in Deutschland gewohnt.  Wir koennen immer etwas von unseren deutschen *Freuden * lernern!


Yes, you ARE right, we CAN learn from our German joys ;D


----------



## Port Hope (13 Apr 2007)

Offensichtlich, brauche ich ein "spellcheck" auf Deutsch!


----------



## observor 69 (13 Apr 2007)

Port Hope said:
			
		

> Offensichtlich, brauche ich ein "spellcheck" auf Deutsch!



http://translate.google.com/translate_t


----------



## SiG_22_Qc (13 Apr 2007)

I've enlisted in the canadian army to work for canada's best interest and pay the ultimate price if necessary(i've put *the necessary*, in case my boss reads this and orders me to explode myself into talibans).

None of the media answered the BASIC QUESTION that everyone asks himself if he has to do something that could end or begin(half empty or half full eh?) in your death. 

WHAT'S IN IT FOR CANADA? and incidentely: my community, my family, my children and me, etc...

Lower the terrorists attacks toward Canada??? 
Giving driving courses in quebec would reduce the deaths greatly than that...(and anyone that passed across quebec and passed through montreal can testify that).

Hahahaha...

I'd like some media to answer real questions and stop to bullshit me with afghan freedom and crap. 
That country is been at war for centuries, i don't think they want peace anyways, we can't just stand there vitam aeterna to police them, can we?

But don't get me wrong, if i'm asked to go i will go with all my enthusiasm.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Apr 2007)

A post at _The Torch_:

Afstan: The "Q" word
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/04/afstan-q-word.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## annamarie temple (14 Apr 2007)

The Ruxted Group said:
			
		

> Please post all responses to The Afghanistan Debate here.


 I wish to think many Canadian will soon be saying HARPER BRING OUR TROOPS HOME. All Canadians are very supportive of all our Brave Man and Woman, but in a war that has been raging in their land for centuries it is time they decided their destiny for themselves.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2007)

annamarie temple said:
			
		

> I wish to think many Canadian will soon be saying HARPER BRING OUR TROOPS HOME. All Canadians are very supportive of all our Brave Man and Woman, but in a war that has been raging in their land for centuries it is time they decided their destiny for themselves.



With respect, that’s exactly what we are trying to do.

We, the minority amongst us who actual _*think*_ about what we are trying to do and why, are *not* trying to make Afghanistan into any sort of Westernized liberal democracy.  Only the terminally stupid – which includes several serving and former cabinet ministers – believe that is possible, or even desirable.

We *are* trying to give the Afghan people the peace and security necessary to make their own decisions about their own country in their own way – with only one caveat: we will not tolerate Afghanistan (or any other country) turning itself into a base for _al Qaeda_ and its fellow travellers.

*Why not?*  If the Afghans want a fundamentalist, anti-Western theocracy why should we object?

Answer: because _al Qaeda_ has declared war on us.  It has declared itself to be our deadly enemy.  It has several _fellow traveller_ type allies with the same aim.  We have a _natural right_ to defend ourselves against our enemies and that includes a _*right*_ to deny our enemies safe haven.

In a way our operation in Afghanistan tries to send a message to the whole world: we (the ISAF nations) do not seek enemies; we are willing (and able) to help you if you do not ally yourselves with those who have declared war on us.  If you make the wrong choices then we will come to your country (after we have helped your own people overthrow an unwelcome government) and we will destroy our enemies there, too.

We are fighting in Afghanistan in pursuit of our own national interests.  Two are most important:

First: we want to deny our enemies the firm base (that’s what _al qaeda_ means, by the way – 'the base') in Afghanistan.  To do that we need to help the lawfully elected government of Afghanistan exercise its mandate all over the country.  The Taliban does not want that to happen.  It wants to defeat the elected government and install a theocracy and, _*probably*_, invite _al Qaeda_ back; and

Second: we are trying to restore our former (‘50s and ‘60s) position as a leader in the world.  We want to have a strong voice in matters which affect our security and our prosperity.  That comes with a price – we are paying it in Afghanistan.  France, Germany, Italy and Spain need not take risks and help us because their _voice_ is secure, their vital interests are taken into account by virtue of their leadership positions in the EU.  We have a tougher row to hoe.

Both of those objectives are worthy and, I dare say, worth the price.

No one wants to _bring the troops home_ more than soldiers.  Those young men and women who are dying are our friends, our colleagues, members of our tightly knit regimental families.  We grieve every death and every wound but we do not want to dishonour ourselves and our country by leaving with the jobs undone.

We respect the fact that many Canadians _support the troops_ even when they disagree with the war.  That’s their right – a right paid for with the lives of over 100,000 of our best young men and women.  With respect, we disagree.  We think shouting “HARPER BRING OUR TROOPS HOME” is misguided, at best, and, at worst, involves giving aid and comfort to our enemies.


Edit: (typos) "... fundamentalist, anti-Wester4n theocracy ..." and "... don not seek enemies ..."


----------



## GAP (14 Apr 2007)

Very well explained ER


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Apr 2007)

E.R. Campbell: Well said.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (14 Apr 2007)

Remember the fear that if Vietnam was to fall, the domino effect would take place?
 Well as it happens things didn't work out as predicted after the Americans pulled out.

Aren't there a number of benign, from an international nations perspective, scenarios possible for Afghanistan? A return to a Taliban/Muslim controlled government but less rigid based on the experiences of the past.  A narco state simply controlled by the warlords, a la Colombia.

If it's export of terrorism by Islamic extremists, aren't there enough converts in Pakistan already to carry out international attacks. Not forgetting home grown extremists ref UK, Canada US.


----------



## Flip (14 Apr 2007)

Anna Marie and Sig_22_QC

Nice post ER!

I think it's really important to point out that the Taliban and their like are 
not simply an alternative form of government. We might have given them
the benefit of the doubt before 9-11, but obviously ignoring them doesn't help.

By the way - the USA was the largest aid supplier to Afghanistan before 9-11.

I think it's best to describe them as a criminal organization.
Would it be good to let the Mafia run Sicily?

Our form of government is to them a crime.
Our form of banking is a crime.
Our form of civil law is a crime.
Our form of criminal law is a crime.

They seek to influence world events to suit their tastes - fine we all do.
Except EVERYTHING we call "civilization" has to go.

I could go on.

Where this bunch of goons has influence - the neighbourhood slides back into the bronze age.  These places are not limited to the middle east, include the Phillipines and Indonesia etc.  This is a global movement.

If there is crime on your street - you call the cops.
If there is crime in a foreign country - somebody( the UN ) calls NATO.

I'm not thrilled with the "world cop" model the US and allies have been thrust into either.
But the price of ignoring this global movement is just too high.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Apr 2007)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=2d5659df-a7a9-4f32-be3a-00d21af2f07e


> War is hell, Afghanistan is worse
> *When we lose eight smiling young men, couldn't someone somewhere just say -- out loud -- 'What a terrible and meaningless waste of lives'
> 
> Janice Kennedy, The Ottawa Citizen*
> ...



First off: I take Ms. Kennedy at face value.  I believe she does *support the troops* even as she hates this war.  Perhaps it’s not just this war she hates, perhaps she objects the use of force to e.g. prevent the Taliban from imposing their twisted, medieval social mores on the people of Afghanistan.  In any event I believe her: she does _*support the troops*_ and she wants to keep them alive.

But she’s not above trotting our clichés and strawmen of her own to bolster her opposition to this mission in that poor, sad, backward, far-away, war ravaged country: 

_”Why Afghanistan and not, say, Darfur?”_ she asks.  Well, Ms. Kennedy, maybe it’s because the United Nations has, over and over again, asked us to go to Afghanistan and to stay in Afghanistan to help bring some peace and some stability to that unfortunate country – just enough to allow the Afghan people to make their own decisions about their own future in their own way without some religious fanatic blowing their brains out if they fail to agree that the 11th century was infinitely preferable to the 21st.  It may be, also, because we *are* in Darfur – not, to be sure, in the numbers that Sen. Romeo Dallaire and his mob want but that’s because the United Nations has not asked us to do more.  We did not invade Afghanistan, we were invited.  We are not going to invade Darfur, either – we are not accustomed to going about the globe waging aggressive war to pacify the demons of failed military commanders.  When (if ever) the United Nations gets its act together and decides that it needs the Western liberal democracies to do something about Darfur it is highly likely that Canada will be there – even as we _stay the course_ in Afghanistan.

_” Why is our commitment so different from that of some other NATO countries?”_ she also asks.  That’s a good question.  Why Kandahar and not, say, some safe _military tourism_ zone up where the French, Germans and Italians do their _good works_?  The answer lies back in the Paul Martin _regime_.  Mr. Martin was prime minister of Canada when NATO asked members to take on a provincial Reconstruction task.  Provincial Reconstruction sounds to so *good*, so much in the Lester Pearson *’helpful-fixer’* tradition, so *peaceful* ... so *Canadian*.  Canada agreed but Prime Minister Martin, it was reported, dithered: “where to go,” he asked and while he was asking and asking other countries – most of the big, well armed European countries, took all the _soft_ jobs leaving Kandahar for us.  We _stepped up to the plate,_ Ms. Kennedy, because Prime Minister Martin, like Prime Minister Harper, wanted Canada to play an active, leadership role, because he understood that during _decade*s* of darkness_ we had neutered ourselves – sacrificing our vital political, economic and social interests on the alter of too many _peace dividends_.  He committed us to a tough combat mission in Kandahar because that’s what we need to do in our *national interest*.  We are sending men and women into harm’s way because they, being professional soldiers, are tools of the government, they are being used by the government to advance its (our) global policy interests.  That’s what professional soldiers do, Ms. Kennedy; they fight and kill and die to serve the policy aims set by the _”old men and comfortably safe politicians”_ who were elected by people just like you and I, Ms. Kennedy.  This is not a _great crusade_ like World War II when the nation takes up arms against a monstrous evil.  The men and women in Afghanistan are _”warriors for the working day”_ and that’s what they do: they give muscle and voice to the soft platitudes from bureaucrats and politicians and the _commentariat_ in Ottawa.

Finally she asks, _” If we're there to help little girls go to school, why aren't we freeing the oppressed girls and women of neighbouring nations?”_  Well, Ms. Kennedy, perhaps because neither they nor the United Nations has asked us for that sort of help.  Maybe the need is not quite as great.  Maybe Pakistan and Uzbekistan do not forbid education for little girls.

Ms. Kennedy, I believe you really support the troops and oppose the war.  I also believe that you are incredibly naive and short sighted.  We all grieve when our soldiers are killed and wounded.  Mostly we wish there was some other place, some other way for us to accomplish our vital national aims in Central Asia.  For the time being, at least, there isn’t.  We’re there because no one else wanted to be.  We’re fighting because the Taliban needs to be contained.  Our soldiers are dying because the Taliban is killing them – because the Taliban is a tough, ruthless, brave, implacable enemy.  We all want our soldiers safe at home – after they have accomplished the mission, after they have served Canada’s vital interests.


----------



## observor 69 (15 Apr 2007)

Afghanistan fight will only get tougher 
By ERIC MARGOLIS

The death last Sunday of six Canadian soldiers in southern Afghanistan reminds us of Santayana's famous maxim that those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it. 

The soldiers were killed near Maiwand, a name meaning nothing to most Westerners. But there, on July 27, 1880, during the bloody Second Anglo-Afghan War, the British Empire suffered one of the worst defeats in its colonial history. 

Two years earlier the Raj (Britain's Indian Empire) had invaded Afghanistan for a second time. The British put Afghan puppet rulers into power in Kabul and Kandahar. 

Ayub Khan, son of Afghanistan's former emir, rallied 12,000 Pashtun (or Pathan) tribal warriors to fight an advancing British force whose mission was, in London's words, to "liberate" Afghan tribes and bring them "the light of Christian civilization." Today, the slogan is "promoting democracy." The fierce Afghan tribal warriors routed the imperial force, composed of British regulars, including the vaunted Grenadier Guards, and Indian Sepoy troops, after a ferocious battle. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle used a British army doctor who fought at Maiwand as his model for Sherlock Holmes' companion, Dr. Watson. 

I recall this epic Afghan victory against British colonialism because understanding today's war in Afghanistan requires proper historical context. A century and a quarter after Maiwand, Pashtun warriors of southern Afghanistan continue to resist another mighty world power and its allies, who have been faithfully following the imperial strategy of the old British Raj. 

The invasion of Afghanistan was marketed to Americans as an "anti-terrorist" mission and an effort to implant democracy. It was sold to Canadians as a noble campaign of "nation-building, reconstruction, and defending women's rights." All nice-sounding, but mostly untrue. 

What we are really seeing is a war by Western powers seeking to dominate the strategic oil corridor of Afghanistan, directed against the Pashtun people who comprise half that nation's population. Another 15 million live just across the border in Pakistan. What we call the "Taliban" is actually a loose alliance of Pashtun tribes and clans, joined by nationalist forces and former mujahedin from the 1980s anti-Soviet struggle. 

ROSY REPORTS CONTRADICTED 

Last year, a leading authority on Afghanistan, the Brussels-based Senlis Council, found the Taliban and its allies control or influence half of the nation -- roughly equivalent to Pashtun tribal territory. Its study flatly contradicted rosy reports of military success and "nation-building" from Washington and NATO HQ. 

This week, the same think tank issued a shocking new survey based on 17,000 interviews. "Afghanis in southern Afghanistan are increasingly prepared to admit their support for Taliban, and belief that the government and international community will not be able to defeat the Taliban is widespread." Senlis' study concurs with my own findings in South Asia that Pakistan and India have independently concluded NATO will eventually be defeated in Afghanistan and withdraw. The U.S., however, may stay on and reinforce its 30,000 troops there because it cannot admit a second defeat after the Iraq debacle. 

The U.S. and NATO are not fighting "terrorists" in Afghanistan and they are certainly not winning hearts and minds. They are fighting the world's largest tribal people. The longer the Westerners stay and bomb villages, the more resistance will grow. Such is the inevitable pattern of every guerrilla war I have ever covered. 

Western troops stuck in this nasty, $2-billion daily guerrilla conflict will become increasingly brutalized, demoralized and violent. This is precisely what happened to Afghanistan's second to latest invader, the Soviet Union. 

Afghanistan's figurehead Hamid Karzai regime controls only the capitol. The rest of the country is under the Taliban, or warlords who run the surging narcotics trade that has made NATO the main defender of the world's leading narco state. 

If 160,000 Soviet troops and 240,000 Afghan Communist soldiers could not defeat the Pashtuns in ten years, how can 50,000 U.S. and NATO troops do better? 

Those generals and politicians who claim this war will be won in a few short years ought to study Maiwand. 

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2007/04/15/pf-4023666.html


I also support the troops, that is a given, but.....
My question is " If 160,000 Soviet troops and 240,000 Afghan Communist soldiers could not defeat the Pashtuns in ten years, how can 50,000 U.S. and NATO troops do better? "


----------



## Flip (15 Apr 2007)

> I also support the troops, that is a given, but.....
> My question is " If 160,000 Soviet troops and 240,000 Afghan Communist soldiers could not defeat the Pashtuns in ten years, how can 50,000 U.S. and NATO troops do better? "



Baden - Im glad you asked that.

The Soviet invasion and occupation was indeed an occupation.
Really, nothing in it for the Afghans.  Afghanistan now has much to gain 
from the international community and NATO by getting rid of the Taliban.
To say nothing of the first reconstruction to happen in more than a generation.

The conflict is not NATO vs Afghans or even Northern Alliance vs Pashtuns.
(That's how the Taliban would frame it ).
The conflict is between the legitimate Afghan government - with international support
against  the Taliban,  which could best be described as a criminal organization.

Criminal organizations like the Taliban and Al Qaeda pose a serious threat to 
civilization as we in the west understand it.

If the above were not true, I wouldn't support the mission either.

The last reason, I could be called on - not in my lane, so to speak.
I would like to think that NATOs professional armys are more skilled, diplomatic and
better equipped than the largely conscript Soviet army of the 80's
NATO troops have force multipliers, communications and skills that
Soviet commanders could not have even dreamed of.  NATO and NGOs have 
a desire and inclination to do something positive for the people with a remarkable technical capacity to support these intentions.
Again - I'm a civvy so I don't know.

"Do better?" I think they already have.


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Apr 2007)

Re Ms Kennedy: a letter sent to the _Ottawa Citizen_:



> Why we are not in Darfur
> 
> Janice Kennedy, in her column "War is hell, Afghanistan is worse" (April 15), asks "Why Afghanistan and not, say, Darfur?"  There are very good reasons why.  The NATO mission in Afghanistan has the unanimous authorization of the U.N. Security Council and is there at the invitation of the legitimately elected government of the country.
> 
> ...



Re Mr Margolis: a letter sent to the _Ottawa Sun_:



> Mr Margolis' mythical "oil corridor"
> 
> Eric Margolis, in his column "Afghanistan fight will only get tougher (April 15), raises yet again the ludicrous idea that the international effort in that country is all about oil.  He writes: "What we are really seeing is a war by Western powers seeking to dominate the strategic oil corridor of Afghanistan..."
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Apr 2007)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is another, Québec based, view of what we are (or are not) doing and why:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070416.wxcogagnon16/BNStory/National/home


> A war of diminishing returns
> 
> LYSIANE GAGNON
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> ...



First: kudos to Sen. Dallaire for trying to make the case for this war rather than trying to minimize its importance so that he can maximize his crusade for Darfur.

Ms. Gagnon is right: M. Avard, like his fellow travellers, is full of nothing but _”dreamy-eyed pacifist theories.”_  Ms. Gagnon is also wrong: M. Avard does not have a point.  Dreamy-eyed pacifist theories do not constitute a reasoned analysis of Canada’s national interests.

The process of making Afghanistan safe enough for the Afghan people to make their own decisions about their own future in their own way is long and arduous and, indeed, filled with “absurdities.”  It is also worthwhile.  Canada is one of the tiny minority of the world’s 200± nations – we are blessed: rich, safe, sophisticated, modern, democratic, industrialized and (in the UN’s words) militarily capable.  If we do not have a _responsibility to protect_ the _wretched of the earth_ (a category which must include the people of Afghanistan) then who does?  If we will not bear a burden then who will?

I acknowledge that Québecers are _out of step_ with the rest of Canada on this matter.  I’m not sure why that is.  Perhaps it is the same as Québec’s responses to the 20th century wars.  Many, many Québecers were wrong, very wrong – *morally wrong*, in 1939/45.  They are also wrong in 2007.


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Apr 2007)

A post at _The Torch_:

Afstan: Three views
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/04/afstan-two-views.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dshipley (17 Apr 2007)

*'Close enough to feel the agony'*

Marty KLINKENBERG
Telegraph-Journal
Published Tuesday April 17th, 2007
Appeared on page A1
In the first 48 hours Lee Windsor toured the countryside in Afghanistan, the University of New Brunswick professor was a passenger in two military convoys attacked by the Taliban.

The first time, the Albert County native was riding with soldiers from a CFB Gagetown battle group when they were ambushed in the Arghandab River Valley west of Kandahar.

The next time, a suicide bomber in a taxi plowed into a light armoured vehicle ahead of his, injuring 10 civilians in downtown Kandahar.

"I was close enough to feel the agony, close enough to feel that pain," Windsor, who is embedded with soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment, said. "It gave me some sense of what the troops here have to face to deliver the payoff."

The director of the Gregg Centre for War & Society at UNB's campus in Fredericton, Windsor is conducting a research project focused on the Canadian military. He made the long journey to Afghanistan last month to better understand the challenges and measure the success of the NATO-led mission, and to evaluate Canada's contribution.

Oddly enough, Windsor is not critical of what he has seen here, despite almost immediately getting shot at and nearly blown up.

The native of Pleasant Vale, near Elgin in Albert County, says the progress he has witnessed outweighs the setbacks. And coming from a guy who dodged two bullets, that says a lot. 

"What really opened my eyes is how things in Afghanistan have started to change," Windsor, 35, said. "The image Canadians have is that it is complete and utter chaos all of the time.

"I came here like everyone else, imagining I'd run off the plane and be dodging rockets the whole time.

But I've been amazed to see commerce, to see an Internet café, to see highways full of vehicles. I've been struck by the number of people out doing things, living and working.

"It is clear the economy has been kick-started largely because of the police presence NATO provides."

Windsor has spent time outside Kandahar, and has come to realize that most Taliban sympathizers are in urban areas. The provincial Reconstruction Team, which helps Afghanis build schools and roads, restore electricity and lay sewage lines, is largely embraced in outlying areas.

He says that helping farmers grow crops other than poppies, which is used to manufacture opium, will help reverse a cycle insurgents have used to enrich themselves at the expense of peasants.

"The challenge I saw, and the troops and battle group are trying to overcome, is that certain areas are still run by feudal drug lords.

"The misconception is that farmers grow poppies for their own benefit. But I stood outside some of their homes and I can tell you there is no way these people are growing this stuff because they want to get rich.

"The problem is that the cycle of this feudal system is so deep, and people are so gripped by the drug lords, that you have to break those bonds, and that can't be done easily.

"That's why the Canadians are here. These people need our help."

Windsor climbed a mountain last week and found himself peering into a lush, green valley. He believes now that farmers will easily be able to feed the millions here who are suffering if they are simply given a hand.

"When I was out with the soldiers, we got stuck in the mud at one point and I got to get out and see people working in the fields.

"What I realized is how enterprising and ingenious they are. They are working with crude instruments - shovels and buckets and a 1,000-year-old irrigation system - and yet their fields were wet in the middle of the desert with water they had diverted from a riverbed.

"I've been amazed. I expected to see abject poverty and found wonderfully industrious people."

Windsor said the mission here can be accomplished by attacking problems on a variety of levels, starting with the military seeing to it that the Taliban has less and less influence. The latter allows the Provincial Reconstruction Team to help Afghanis get back on their feet after decades of war and abuse. Lastly, he said the Afghan police and military has to be improved, which would eventually allow Canadian soldiers to leave.

"It is important to train the army to the same standards the Canadians are using to get the Taliban, and not innocent people, and that's working," Windsor said. "People who fled to refugee camps are coming back and are working their fields because they understand now that foreign troops and Afghan forces will protect them.

"They want to restore life in their own country."

Windsor has been interviewing soldiers as part of his project and eventually hopes to write a book using the information he collects here.

For the most part, he said is optimistic after what he has found.

"One thing I've recognized after being on the base is that the perceptions Canadians have about the effort here doesn't match the reality.

This idea that the Canadians are shouldering the burden alone is bull.

"Not only are the Americans and Brits here, but in the past few days I have seen German officers and Danes, and the first soldiers from the Polish contingent are starting to arrive.

"The multi-national coalition is growing by the day."

The cost of the war is growing, but Windsor believes it is a good fight.

"The eight soldiers who were killed in operations here in the last week did not die in vain," he said. "They died conducting patrols while trying to bring feudal slaves some hope.

"I just wish like hell that Canadians had as much patience as the Afghanis do. If people want the situation to improve, they should stop saying it is impossible and figure out a way to help.

"I'm convinced. I'm sold."

Marty Klinkenberg is contributing editor of the Telegraph-Journal. He is imbedded with New Brunswickers working as part of the NATO effort against the Taliban. He can be reached at mklinkenberg@rogers.com.

http://www.canadaeast.com/ce2/docroot/article.php?articleID=128606


----------



## observor 69 (17 Apr 2007)

[Heavy sarcasm on] Truly an amazing article. [heavy sarcasm off]


----------



## Armymedic (17 Apr 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> [Heavy sarcasm on] Truly an amazing article. [heavy sarcasm off]



And thank you for underscoring the lack of understanding Cdn citizens have. Those who never stepped foot into Afghanistan and actually seen what thier Armed Forces are doing there have accomplished in the last yr+, and come out of the closet when ever someone says anything supportive of our efforts.

It actually was a good article, written by a credable acedemic, not a group of people who normally goes out of thier way to defend our mission or the CF.


----------



## GAP (17 Apr 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> [Heavy sarcasm on] Truly an amazing article. [heavy sarcasm off]



That's good press the CF is sorely lacking...do not begrudge it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Apr 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> [Heavy sarcasm on] Truly an amazing article. [heavy sarcasm off]



Alright smart guy.....lets have an expansion of that thought.


----------



## observor 69 (17 Apr 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Alright smart guy.....lets have an expansion of that thought.




Well Bruce let's put down a few markers. I support our troops and I am not a member of the "let's get out now" group. What I do want is a recognition of the sheer difficulty of fighting a war where time and the limited number of ISAF/US troops on the ground are the primary factors mitigating against us and are the same factors working for the Taliban. The good things the prof observed are I am sure all true but they have to be put in the context of the big picture.
  I am puzzled that a UNB prof would make such broad comments based on a short visit to Afghanistan. It is also highly possible that the writer of this article could have produced a better review of the professor's trip and opinions on the topic. He wouldn't be the first Canadian journalist getting over his head commenting on Canada's mission in Afghanistan.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Apr 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> I am puzzled that a UNB prof would make such broad comments based on a short visit to Afghanistan. .



But you make no such trip and yet still make a broad statement condemning his work..............nice.


----------



## -dikweed- (17 Apr 2007)

I know this man.  He spent time in the army with the PPCLI.  He is also not a blind believer in war, I trust his analysis.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Apr 2007)

Baden Guy:

There are many articles with negative slants from those that have no desire to see success.  These are published regularly as being necessary to hold power to account.

"Reputable" reporters pride themselves on neutrality - which in fact merely plays to their distrust of all things pertaining to authority and generally results in at best cynical reports, seldom whole-hearted endorsements.  

"Authority" is told to speak for itself but when it does its efforts are dismissed as propoganda and shouted down by the chorus.

When, exactly, is it permissible for a whole-hearted endorsement of the mission to be published?  And who should be allowed to utter it?

It makes a pleasant change to hear somebody, especially from academia, speaking out firmly and unequivocally for the mission.   It is an equally pleasant surprise to see that the press published it.

Perhaps it was allowed because the reporter expressed surprise that anyone could support the mission.


----------



## -dikweed- (17 Apr 2007)

Actually, NB papers, principally The TG and the Daily Gleaner, publish alot of military-related articles due to the presence of CFB Gagetown.  The NB media has always supported the Afghan mission....but then again, every paper is owned by the Irvings.


----------



## Garett (17 Apr 2007)

Lee is a military history prof with the Gregg Center at UNB (http://www.unbf.ca/arts/MSS/.  I'm pretty sure he was in the West Nova Scotia Regiment while at Acadia university and he might have been with 8 CH for awhile.  He has been working on this project for a long time now.  He followed 2RCR through their pre-deployment training, now he is over in Afghanistan for awhile and he will be conducting many interviews when the Battle Group returns.  His intention is to publish a "Band of Brothers" style book entitled something like "A Year In The Life of a Battle Group".  I'm looking forward to reading it, there aren't many Canadian books out like that.


----------



## observor 69 (17 Apr 2007)

Philltaj said:
			
		

> I know this man.  He spent time in the army with the PPCLI.  He is also not a blind believer in war, I trust his analysis.



I was unable to find mention of his PPCLI time at   http://www.unbf.ca/arts/MSS/faculty.html


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Apr 2007)

Where is PM taking us?
Canadians have no way of knowing if $650 million for 120 tanks is money well spent or if our defence minister's predictions that Canada should prepare for 15 years of fighting are a reliable forecast – or just a tactical justification for a suspect purchase
Apr 17, James Travers 
http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/203659

Mr Travesty is shocked, shocked to discover this awful spectre:



> In practice as well as in philosophy the Armed Forces are edging closer to becoming interoperable – as well as heavily dependent – on the United States...



_Quelle horreur_! Why is interoperability suddenly an implied menace? NATO members (including the US!) have been working on interoperability for many years.
http://www.nato.int/docu/interoperability/html_en/interoperability01.html

But I guess Mr Travers, as a typical Canadian columnist, is not quite up to speed on these matters--including the fact that Canadian Navy vessels have been operating (outside the NATO ambit in these examples) as integral parts of US Navy carrier battle groups since 1998, when M. Chrétien was prime minister.
http://www.dnd.ca/site/focus/canada-us/backgrounder_e.asp

I wonder if Mr Travers, when ruminating (I think reflecting is beyond him) on the point of the Afstan mission, will look at this Human Rights Watch report:

Afghanistan: Civilians Bear Cost of Escalating Insurgent Attacks
Rising Civilian Death Toll Points to Taliban, Hezb-e Islami War Crimes
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/16/afghan15688.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (19 Apr 2007)

> Grits to introduce motion on Afghanistan pullout
> Updated Thu. Apr. 19 2007 7:38 AM ET
> Canadian Press
> 
> ...


This is sad.  These same hypocrites would stand in front of the world and proclaim what great peacekeepers we are, but as soon as doing the right thing gets a little hard they want us to run home.


----------



## 2 Cdo (19 Apr 2007)

> This is sad.  These same hypocrites would stand in front of the world and proclaim what great peacekeepers we are, but as soon as doing the right thing gets a little hard they want us to run home.



Bravo, well said. Agree 100%!


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Apr 2007)

As long as NDP and Liberal clowns bicker over when to withdrawal, nothing will happen.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (19 Apr 2007)

Well I think they are going to have to announce they plan on extending the mission sooner rather than later so that the announcement doesn't come in the middle of an election.  If it's announced in the middle of an election, all the parties are going to cry out calling it an attempt at political gain to earn votes.
  This is the CF's job. They are deployed when needed, especially when provoked (remember 9/11? because I'm starting to think the Liberals don't, and the NDP never noticed it.)


----------



## benl (19 Apr 2007)

"When something is hard...it's not worth doing!" (Homer simpson, to Bart, on learning to play the guitar)
I think it's a joke that this Coderre, said "we have done our part in Afghanistan."!!!!  The mission isn't finished.  When you start something you finish it no matter how hard it is...what kind of a message is that statement sending!?  Outright cowardly if you ask me.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (19 Apr 2007)

The more I watch the Liberal Party in action, the more I physically loathe them.  They are everything that's wrong with Canada.


Matthew.


----------



## 2 Cdo (19 Apr 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> The more I watch the Liberal Party in action, the more I physically loathe them.  They are everything that's wrong with Canada.
> 
> 
> Matthew.



I find sometimes that they also make one physically sick! :-X


----------



## mover1 (19 Apr 2007)

Just think if they make it an election issue, then that would make the 50 + we lost amount to nothing that political cannon fodder. 

I would like to thank the various government parties of this country who sent us over there to do a job. And then play politics with it while we are there and threaten to pull us out before it is done. 

Some one should remind them that this mission is not like ordering pizza. Delivery is not guaranteed in 30 minutes..


----------



## a78jumper (19 Apr 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> The more I watch the Liberal Party in action, the more I physically loathe them.  They are everything that's wrong with Canada.
> 
> 
> Matthew.



My sentiments exactly. Talk a good line but mean absolutely nothing when push comes to shove.


----------



## SiG_22_Qc (19 Apr 2007)

there's a serious lack of objectivity in this thread, with sentence like: this is right!

or we got attacked, we're *defending ourselves*, canada got attacked by none, correct me if i'm wrong.

Getting attacked in another country is legitimate defence, i guess, yeah the afghan official gov. is behind us after all. As it was behind the russian in the 80's.

i dont c much difference back then and now, besides the difference in number and equipment.


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Apr 2007)

Sig 22 Qc, WTF?

Please expand on your arguments. be warned if your going where I think you are, stand by for a barrage of fire...


----------



## McG (19 Apr 2007)

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> or we got attacked, we're *defending ourselves*, canada got attacked by none, correct me if i'm wrong.


On 11 September 2001, NATO was attacked.



			
				SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> . As it [the Afghan government] was behind the russian in the 80's.


The current government was elected by the Afghan people.



			
				SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> i dont c much difference back then and now, besides the difference in number and equipment.


What are the number and equipment differences that you see?  I could comment on this, but since you brought it up I'll give you the first shot.


----------



## Flip (19 Apr 2007)

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> there's a serious lack of objectivity in this thread, with sentence like: this is right!
> 
> or we got attacked, we're *defending ourselves*, Canada got attacked by none, correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> ...



There is an ethnic and cultural divide between a northern majority and a southern minority.
The taliban evolved from the later.  By any and all accounts they are not a nice bunch.
(objective so far)

Assuming your point is we have no business being there at all and for the sake of argument,
conceding that point.  Would it be OK to let this criminal organization continue to
run Afghanistan into the bronze age and terrorize anyone who disagreed with them?

We in the west generally let those who live differently continue on that path until
their mess spills over into our yard. Then we act.

Consider the logical outcome of your argument. Is leaving Afghanistan in the least bit tenable?  Is the Taliban acceptable as government?  Is it responsible to leave it to Afghans
alone?

The Taliban is a criminal organization with sympathizers and allies all over the world.
How long should we stand idly by?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (19 Apr 2007)

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> there's a serious lack of objectivity in this thread, with sentence like: this is right!
> 
> or we got attacked, we're *defending ourselves*, canada got attacked by none, correct me if i'm wrong.
> 
> ...



First,  let me compliment you on your English, you write it very well.  I think I see what  you meant and I do see how others will understand what you've written.  I have to agree with you that most of the postings on this thread are tendentious.  However I want to dispute your other assertions.

1)  It wasn't a military attack by a legitimate government.  True the Taliban Government was only actively supplying Al-quida and giving them assistance and encouragement in attacking us.  They also used their military forces to protect the terrorists.  In law,  if you know someone is going to commit a crime,  and you do nothing - you're a criminal too.  If you assist them,  you're a criminal too.  If you protect them from justrice afterwards, you're a criminal too.  Governments are responsible for their borders,  and what is inside their country.  The taliban government refused to help us, or to allow us to do what we needed to do to ensure our own safety.  They, al-quida and the Taliban  even alluded to more attacks and made more threats - threats they've proven they are capable and willing to follow through on.  Under Article 51 of the UN charter we had the right (and obligation) to act.

Now for the second part,  yes it was the USA that was attacked,  however Article 5 in NATO charter says that "

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. "

(Because USA was attacked,  we were attacked.)

     Your assertion that there isn't much difference between us being there and the Soviets- We are there because we need to remove a threat.  Afghanistan was being used as a base from which attacks against us and other NATO members were launched.  The Soviets were there for strategic resources and other political aims.  We want to build Afghanistan to be a prosperous Nation with complete freedom of religion.  The Soviets wanted to oppress the country, strip it of its resources and make everyone Atheist.  The Soviets were there against the wishes of the UN,  we are there with the support and help of the UN along with many other UN countries.

 :warstory:


----------



## LordOsborne (19 Apr 2007)

The fact that Coderre thinks that we have "done our bit" in Afghanistan by 2009 is just sad. These people have seen nothing but strife and war for longer than they can remember. We're just a small blip on their history. I'm not seeing the logic in leaving before the job is done. Either way... I know right now two parties I _won't _ be voting for, come election time...


----------



## SiG_22_Qc (19 Apr 2007)

Your statement is well organized, thanks for your time.

911 was a armed attacked. i got no objection on that, but the hi-jackers were almost all Saudis...Afghanistan was used as a training base, but the point i'm unsure is the link between Al-Qaeda, mujahiddins and talebans. Im unsure if it's all the same people were talking about...Talebans really never held the whole country, the power in Afghanistan is by far un-centralized. To take down Al-Qaeda couldn't we just have used sat imagery, and send in commandos to take them down? are we exceeding self-defence? And will it solve the problem? It's unlikely that extremists will pour water in their wine, but if we can manage to give a job to every(or so) afghans rather than pour tons of soldiers, talebans manpower might melt like ice on a sunny spring day.

By my nature i'm totally against religious integrism...why? Because they don't question anything, allah, coran or mullah whoever/whatever said it, we have to do it, why questionning absolute? I'm not going to tag anyone as a sofa warrior, a war monger, or whatever.

I'm not against the use of military force in Afghanistans, but what are the criterias to say: we're done there. I'm not hearing anything about that in the media...i just hear thrown dates there and date, oh 2009, might be 2010. Might as well admit that you don't know. I'm ignorant.

Sorry about the 3rd grader english, i'm trying.


----------



## HItorMiss (19 Apr 2007)

When the going gets tough the Liberals get going!

But did anyone here truly expect anything different from them or the NDP?

Hmmmm I have more to say actually.... The CF and it's personnel have always and will always be a political tool for the Liberals more so then just a tool of foreign policy as the Military always is with most nations. The Liberals view us as something to be used to gather votes wether by deploying us or removing us. Now take into account of course that they will never ever fund us as spending on the military runs counter to the Canadian populaces priority list of things things they wish to see the tax money go to and of course that the Liberals always govern by poll's and you get a  glimpse of how they view the CF and it's role in their governing policy.

When we die to a Liberal it means watch the poll's and see which way the winds blow on the mission and that is it. The current party has never and will never think of us as anything else.

EDIT: Spelling and Clarity


----------



## GAP (19 Apr 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> When the going get's tough the LIberals get going!
> 
> But did anyone here truely expect anything different from them or the NDP?



No, but it sure is fun jumping up and down on them in pure stomping mode.....  ;D


----------



## childs56 (19 Apr 2007)

The mission was always planned for far beyond 2009. It was untill 2012 if I remember. 
The emphasis was to be away from war and into reconstruction. 

Problem is the Libs wanted all the glory but none of the guts. 
They wanted to waltz into Afganistan, save the world and look good at doing it. 
Problem, the enemy wants to prolong the war so that Countrys will loose heart and such as Liberals will use pulling out as a ploy to win an election. Then they real harm will begin. 
We will of lost the war, lost the people lost the support of the locals and our own and lost the will to go back and do it over again but this time at a much higher cost.  
Problem is this time we will be up agaisnt a much harder and stronger enemy. We will be forever dealing with them if we do nto eradicate them now. 

Liberals making a promise to with draw is like promising your G/F your going to with draw. It doesnt happen at the best of times. 

Personally I think every member of Parliment should have to serve 6 months as a shadow follower on the the Afganistan Politicle scene prior to them continuing employment in Canada.


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Apr 2007)

In the House debate on the Liberal motion to stop combat in 2009, Taliban Jack (the NDP will not support the motion because they want the troops out ASAP!) and his cohorts called for settling everything by negotiating with the Taliban.

National Defence critic Dawn Black even quoted Churchill: "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war."

Ms Black is obviously unfamiliar with what Mr Churchill said after the Munich Agreement:

"Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour. They will have war."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## smitty66 (19 Apr 2007)

Glad to see that these sorry excuses for Canadians can use the deaths of members of the CF to score political points and rev up for an election. If our forefathers had the intestinal fortitude of these clowns we'd either be "Seig Heiling" or speaking Russian! I cringe to think what the world would look like if the NDP or this iteration of the Liberals were in power in 1939. 
Hopefully they will have the same attitude when it comes to the next election campaign, "Election campaign is half over... I guess our work here is done!"

Sickening.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (19 Apr 2007)

This is the same Denis Coderre leading the charge who wants to back segregated bases for aboriginals. Is any reasonable Canadian really listening to this gang?


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Apr 2007)

Denis the Thug must appeal to some audience.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## smitty66 (19 Apr 2007)

> Denis the Thug must appeal to some audience.


Pretty sad statement about the Canadian public isn't it?  
Mr Co-Derrier...oops, the Liberals expert on National Defense matters is only overshadowed in his ignorance by the ever misinformed Dawn Black. Have any of these people actually seen any Army guy?


----------



## Fraz (19 Apr 2007)

First of all let me agree with all of the posts above.  The truly sad part is that both Liberals and NDP refuse to understand, that in order for the PRT to operate effectively (reconstruction, aid, all various NGO's, development of economy and ANA/ANP, etc...) you have to secure the areas in which you are doing those reconstruction efforts. The old phrase you can't have one without the other plays so loudly that it's deafening. We've lost too many people, and invested too much time, and the effort expended to gain the tenuous trust/cooperation of the local population to ie: cut and run, or find another NATO country to take over (there at the present time is none willing to do that in our AO due to 'head in the sand' syndrome clearly in line with the NDP and now Liberal stance) Open, and coherent debate is necessary and needs to govern where, why and how we are sent on operations abroad, however... it needs to be intelligent debate which has been all but missing from the current opposition parties motions/comments/ policies.  The absurd naivete of the parties in question only goes to show the old 'Fireproof House' mentality of isolationsonism 1930's politicians.  Obviously we need to make clear the objectives to ordinary Canadians because to those that are uninformed average citizens, all they see on the news is our ramp ceremonies, and news of casualties and various ops and the outcries of the opposition. ie: when was the last time the media covered one of the medical clinics we provided? Not to say that we only tow the line of the supposed 'Imperialist Americans' but we do what's right and stick up for the little guy in this case the people of Afghanistan and get them on their feet, so we don't have to come back in 20 years or so because someone blew up something in Canada as an example.  
We do need to discuss the conditions necessary to reevaluate our mission/objectives, but not in the sense of some arbitrary date which only gives missplaced hope to the enemy.  But, it needs to be constructive debate not just ignorant ramblings of how any military action is abhorrent to the NDP.  Our actions over there need to succeed in order to reverse the situation of a failed/fledgling state and thereby stabilizing the region and helping fellow human beings.  There is no oil or alterior motives (to my knowledge anyways) to our being in Afghanistan (regardless of fmr. PM Chretien's motive for sending us to avoid Iraq if it was the case) but rather to do the right thing.  To do otherwise as these opposition parties suggest only means that the newest names on cenotaphs across the country have been in vain, and for those (good friends of mine included) I refuse to allow that injustice to happen. 
When the ANA, ANP and the Afghan government can independently operate and bring order control to Afghanistan can we then withdraw.. to even contemplate otherwise is foolhardy and selfish... 
Rant off...


----------



## observor 69 (19 Apr 2007)

Watched Don Newman this afternoon on CBC interviewing a panel consisting of Laurie Hawn, Denis Coderre and Audrey McLaughlin.

Hawn  don't pull out
Coderre  pull out Feb 2009
McLaughin  pull out now

At one point I had to smile, McLaughin is going on about how we must pull out now and start doing peaceful projects and Hawn is at the other end grimacing and turning his head from side to side.


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Apr 2007)

A post at _The Torch_ (note the last para):

Choose your Churchill
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/04/choose-your-churchill.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Jon-G (19 Apr 2007)

I may not be as informed on Canadian politics as I should be, especially in regards to this subject, but I agree that it would serve no beneficial purpose to withdraw. Whether we withdraw now, or in 2009, the job will not be done (as many have pointed out). We are at war- war brings casualties. This country has been so far removed from this way of thinking for so long that many Canadians (politicians or not) cannot stomach it. I hate seeing ramp ceremonies as much as the next man, but that is the price of progress. It makes me sick the way CF members' lives can be used as pawns in a political scheme, absolutely sick.


----------



## LordOsborne (19 Apr 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> In the House debate on the Liberal motion to stop combat in 2009, Taliban Jack (the NDP will not support the motion because they want the troops out ASAP!) and his cohorts called for settling everything by negotiating with the Taliban.
> 
> National Defence critic Dawn Black even quoted Churchill: "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war."
> 
> ...



Another Churchill quote I love is "Every country has an army.. either their own, or someone else's."


----------



## Exarecr (19 Apr 2007)

Any Liberal comment on Defence should centre on tokenism, and how it benefits banana Republics. However, to see Coderre ramble on with such visually contemptuous glee about the Military Mission in Afghanistan which he so very obviously knows nothing about is typical of Liberal arrogance. Can,t wait for the next great Liberal think tank as Dion and Coderre debate the future of the gas operated rifle should they "go green".


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Apr 2007)

Bit crossbows kill people too. 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Steenburg (19 Apr 2007)

Wasn't a high ranking Taliban quoited recently as stating something like, "All we need is to kill a few more Canadian soldiers, and their government will pull out of the war"  Why the government is not throwing this in the oppositions face and showing Canadians how the libs and the N.D.P. are playing into the Talibans hands? I know during the next election I'm going to saying at NDP rallies "Yep they are the Talibans choice". And lets face it if the Libs had won the last election we would have probably withdrawn by now. And the free world would be saying old cut and run Canada sure isn't what it used to be. Also the new aircraft would not have been bought let alone a new battle tank.


----------



## Jed (19 Apr 2007)

The utter lack of fortitude and guts, as well as the false concern for the troops, shown by any Canadian political leader taking this unsupportable approach totally disgusts me. I am sorry I ever marked a ballot for the worthless party hacks that spout this nonsense.


----------



## MediTech (20 Apr 2007)

We've made an investment of blood and personnel there.  We need to finish the job not just because it's the right thing to do but also so that they haven't died in vain


----------



## North Star (20 Apr 2007)

All this is going to do is backfire against the Liberals, and deservedly so.

Imagine this: the motion passes. The PM comments that it's a blatant flip flop, but does acknowledge some concerns. He then declares that Canada will withdraw the BG in 2009, leaving the PRT, an IMAT-like unit, a SAT, and some critical enablers. He's cornered those Canadians who think we've done our bit but don't want to cut and run, while keeping the hardcore "stand until we win" types like us. Dion get pushed into crowded left with Taliban Jack and discredited amongst middle-class non-Toronto voters, who pretty much determine who wins elections. The PM wins the day - he keeps Canada from squandering our sacrifices, keeps our influence within NATO, and garners the support of even a Democratic US President. 

The Liberals, in chasing polls, are about to learn a lesson - leaders who make unpopular decisions are liked better than those incapable of doing so. They could have taken the middle ground and ended up in a advantageous position/ However, because they've followed the public's knee-jerk reaction to tragic events overseas, they're looking like idiots to the average Johnny Canuck in a Tim Hortons. 

I hear you, they make me sick for their opportunism, as well as their stupidity.


----------



## HItorMiss (20 Apr 2007)

Med.Tech said:
			
		

> We've made an investment of blood and personnel there.  We need to finish the job not just because it's the right thing to do but also so that they haven't died in vain



Ok to be totally honest I am sick of that statement...I mean really sick of it.

NO soldiers life is ever shed in vain, leaving a mission or continuing one simply on the basis of "we lost people there" makes no sense. Guess what They were all soldiers they know/knew the risk of what they were doing. If a mission is unattainable then we withdraw if it is deemed of national importance then we continue but using the blood of those as a rally cry for something is a dishonor to them and what they stood for. We are in the end tools of the state and we take our chances as such. But please please do not think that our death (the our is everyone in the CF) as a reason to continue a futile effort for anything. We die because we do because sometimes we are told to not as a reason to have more people killed.

Lets be clear I do not think the Afghan mission to be unattainable or I would not have been there 3 times nor would I have bled there. I am just sick of that sentiment and rallying cry.

Med I just used your statement this is not a personal attack.


----------



## MediTech (20 Apr 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Ok to be totally honest I am sick of that statement...I mean really sick of it.
> 
> NO soldiers life is ever shed in vain, leaving a mission or continuing one simply on the basis of "we lost people there" makes no sense. Guess what They were all soldiers they know/knew the risk of what they were doing. If a mission is unattainable then we withdraw if it is deemed of national importance then we continue but using the blood of those as a rally cry for something is a dishonor to them and what they stood for. We are in the end tools of the state and we take our chances as such. But please please do not think that our death (the our is everyone in the CF) as a reason to continue a futile effort for anything. We die because we do because sometimes we are told to not as a reason to have more people killed.
> 
> ...



I guess I'm a little idealistic.  I don't want an argument so I'll agree to disagree.


----------



## HItorMiss (20 Apr 2007)

I will agree that you havent a clue what your talking about anyway. You haven't the experience or the forthought to get that sentiment. Ideals are worth less then the dirt I bled in.


----------



## MediTech (20 Apr 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> I will agree that you havent a clue what your talking about anyway. You haven't the experience or the forthought to get that sentiment. Ideals are worth less then the dirt I bled in.



PM inbound HitorMiss.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (20 Apr 2007)

I thought this was a very interesting read as it so eloquently identifies the abandonment of the concept of universal human rights by the Left in Western Nations and just how hypocritical the position is....

Matthew.   



> Betrayed
> By Amir Taheri
> The New York Post | April 11, 2007
> 
> ...


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (20 Apr 2007)

You write English better than I understand French.  I'll be sure to look at the meanings behind what you're saying - I'm not a fan of nitpicking arguments. 

A connection between the Taliban and al-Qaeda is easy to establish.  From the press conferences the taliban had saying they'd protect Osama and al-Qaeda to proof that al-Qaeda  had training camps in there.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9357/
"What was Afghanistan's role in the September 11 attacks?
Thanks to the ruling Taliban—Muslim fundamentalists who imposed radical Islamic rule on the country—Afghanistan had become a base for terrorists, namely Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda training camps. Because Afghanistan was such a chaotic place, and because the Taliban were deeply influenced by bin Laden’s philosophy, the Taliban welcomed him and his network into the country. There they could plan their attacks with less fear of reprisal because other countries were wary of entering Afghanistan."

What essentially it means is that the Taliban gave aid and refuge to those who 1) attacked us and 2) going to attack us in the future.  

If we left right after removing the Taliban government,  their armed fighters would recapsure Afghanistan inside of a Month.  So if we leave before Afghanisan s stabalised,  we'll have to go in there all over again.  There are two alternatives.   We could choose one ethnic group,  arm them to the teeth,  give them more money than they know what to do with and tell them to take over.  Insuing brutal dictatorship,  ethnic cleanings and all that jazz.  OR we could do what we're doing,  stay and allow Afganistan to devlope a stable economy, stable working government and a military infrastructure capable of exerting its national will inside of its borders.

As much as I am a fan of "contracting out" a war.  (yes that was sarcastic)  I feel proud that we're in Afghanistan.  We chose not to take the easy route,  we chose not to ignore suffering we chose not to abandon an opressed people to another horrible regieme simply because it would be to much bother to actually do what needs to be done.  We can't help everyone, everywhere - but I know we can do good there. (And we have)

There is still alot of work left to be done,  Afghanistan is not quite ready to stand on her own two legs yet.  But she is making great progress.  We knew going in there we'd be in there for a decade.  (they've known 40 some years of constant war - it will take a while to bring them into the 20th centuary)


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Apr 2007)

Aces Zell.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (20 Apr 2007)

I just finished reading the entire debate in Hansard.  It made me feel unclean.  On top of that, I've lost an hour I can never get back.

But one thing struck me.  If the Liberals think the Kandahar mission is doomed to fail, then why did they send the CF down there from Kabul in the first place?  And if they don't think it's doomed, then why don't they focus on fixing what they think the gov't is doing wrong instead of advocating a withdrawal?

If it's the right job, but the wrong execution, then change the execution, not the job.  Viewed in that light, the resolution doesn't make any sense.

Which leads me to believe the Liberals don't see our Afghan mission as a vital foreign affairs issue, but rather as a wedge issue with the electorate.  This motion they introduced isn't about putting Canada's mission on a firmer path, but rather about making a move in a domestic political game.

That they cannot think beyond partisan politics for even the shortest of moments is extremely disheartening.


----------



## observor 69 (20 Apr 2007)

Perhaps after 54 deaths and climbing the Liberals thought Canada had make it's fair share of sacrifice and it was time for another NATO country to step up. 
Which raises the next question, how much time, money and sacrifice does NATO/UN give before the Afghanistan people develop a stable country?
Apparently the Taliban have unlimited amounts of time and people to sacrifice, a tactic that worked for them in the past.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (20 Apr 2007)

> Perhaps after 54 deaths and climbing the Liberals thought Canada had make it's fair share of sacrifice and it was time for another NATO country to step up.
> Which raises the next question, how much time, money and sacrifice does NATO/UN give before the Afghanistan people develop a stable country?



Do we determine our success based upon effort (how many died, how much it cost, etc), or based upon results (the job is done, or it isn't yet)?

It's a good question, but the Liberals didn't ask it.  They assumed it was the former, and tabled a divisive and simpleminded resolution in order to further a partisan domestic electoral agenda.


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Apr 2007)

By the way, the "Jaw, jaw" Churchill quote appears to be apocryphal--but I do not blame Ms. Black for that since even I (!) thought it was the real thing:
http://www.damianpenny.com/comments/display/9287#132323

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Wootan 9 (20 Apr 2007)

From today's "Globe and Mail" on-line:

The only Afghan escalation is in the rhetoric
MIKE CAPSTICK 

Special to Globe and Mail Update

Eight Canadian soldiers have died in a week at the hands of enemy bomb-makers, renewing the calls for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the government's decision to modernize the army's tank fleet has brought criticism that Canada is ramping up the conflict.

But in fact, the only escalation is in the rhetoric of the critics in politics and the media.

First, let me put my cards on the table. I recently retired from 32 years in the Canadian Forces, including command of troops in Cyprus, Bosnia and Afghanistan. I spent a year in Kabul as the leader of Canada's first Strategic Advisory Team in Afghanistan. My team worked across the spectrum of Afghan society, from government ministers to construction labourers. We also worked closely with the International Security Assistance Force, multilateral donors, official development agencies and NGOs.

Most importantly, we worked very closely with the brave and impressive Afghans formulating their country's national development strategy and delivering rural reconstruction assistance. In short, we had an opportunity to gain insight that many observers are denied.

During the early part of this decade, I was one of the leading proponents of converting the army to a medium-weight, all-wheeled organization. Before last summer's intense combat operations in Afghanistan, I would have maintained the view that tanks were not necessary there, and probably counterproductive. However, a good army is a learning army, and ours learned some hard lessons in Kandahar:

Armoured protection is essential. Although there is no perfect safeguard against roadside bombs, mines and suicide bombers, a tank can handle all but the biggest explosions.

There are places in rural Afghanistan that wheeled vehicles simply cannot go. Irrigation ditches and low walls made of sun-hardened mud are effective obstacles to wheeled vehicles. Leopard tanks can negotiate these and withstand the small arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire that covers these positions.

The tank provides accurate, precise and consistent firepower. A well-trained crew can consistently attain first-round hits on targets as small as a square metre from as far as two kilometres. In doing so, the tank can destroy a precise target without killing civilians or causing the extensive damage that is characteristic of even the most precise air strike. This alone should convince the critics that Canada is doing the right thing by employing tanks.

The facts are clear — in southern Afghanistan, tanks provide Canadian soldiers with mobility, protection, and, most importantly, the ability to destroy targets and kill insurgents without harming innocents. It's hard not to conclude that the critics are either ill informed or motivated by ideology and politics.

Even more alarming, however, are the calls to abandon our mission and the people of Afghanistan.

It is obvious that some have never agreed with the argument that a stable Afghanistan is essential to our security. They have ignored the reality that the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were planned and financed from the safe haven of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. They have also ignored the fact that an unstable Afghanistan presents a clear danger in an already dangerous region. Are they willing to risk a nuclear confrontation resulting from irreconcilable Iranian, Indian and Pakistani interests in an unstable Afghanistan?

It's also difficult to understand how they can ignore the Canadian-values dimension of the Afghan mission. Although it may not be clear in Ottawa or Toronto, it is obvious in Kabul that Afghanistan has made remarkable progress in the past five years. A president and parliament have been elected and a constitution is in effect. None of these institutions is perfect — far from it. But every day for a year I looked into the eyes of Afghans who want nothing more than a basic level of security and to make their children's lives a little better than their own.

Afghanistan is at or near the bottom of every single United Nations human development indicator. Canada is at or near the top. I'm not sure how those who style themselves as progressives can advocate abandoning Afghans to the criminals, warlords, drug mafias and religious zealots who destroyed the country in the 1990s and would consign them to remaining one of the poorest peoples in the world.

Master Corporal Christopher Paul Raymond Stannix, killed in action west of Kandahar on April 8, understood what most of the critics refuse to see — that the Afghan people need our help. His obituary quotes him as having stating that "I would like to think if I was in the same position there ..... somebody would be willing to step in and help me."

That contention is not articulated in the language of think tanks, columnists or political rhetoric. But it is a clear, concise statement of what the mission is about: helping people who need it. I would like nothing better than to see 90 per cent of Canada's Afghan expenditures devoted to governance and development. The reality is that until the south of the country is stabilized, this will remain a pipe dream. Afghans and those of us with experience on the ground know that "rebalancing" the mission is impossible without security.

Canadians have paid a high human price in Afghanistan — a price that renders the escalation of rhetoric surrounding the government's tank deal petty, even craven. Canadian troops, diplomats and aid workers have all proven the strength of our commitment on the ground. It's time to honour that commitment by scaling back the overheated debate surrounding this mission and concentrating on how to assure the future of Afghanistan and a people whom the international community has abandoned before, at horrific cost.

Colonel Mike Capstick retired from the Canadian Armed Forces in late 2006 and is now an associate of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.

Print E-mail Comments (5) Share License


----------



## GAP (20 Apr 2007)

Excellent


----------



## MediTech (20 Apr 2007)

Excellent piece of writing.


----------



## CF_Enthusiast (20 Apr 2007)

Nice.


----------



## Steenburg (21 Apr 2007)

I am surprised and happy that the Globe @ mail published the colonels statements


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (21 Apr 2007)

Okay,  in my last post - I was replying to postings someone else had up there.  Now that they're gone,  my post seems out of place.  I'm not crazy ... okay, I'm not that crazy.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Apr 2007)

Its OK Zell, I'll vouch for you...this time ;D

Where did our signaller friend go?


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Apr 2007)

A letter of mine in the _Ottawa Sun_, April 25:
http://www.ottawasun.com/Comment/Letters/2007/04/25/4127902.html



> In his letter of April 23, Albert Bertrand claims that the war in Afghanistan is about American "access to the petroleum from Central Asia." That is simply left-wing mythical nonsense.
> 
> Afghanistan has no relevance to access to central Asian oil. Most of that oil is in Kazakhstan, far to the west of Afghanistan, and Kazakhstan has no need for Afghanistan as a pipeline route.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2007)

Funny how the defeatists never think of half the Afghan population (much les what will happen to 100% of them if we withdraw).

http://justbetweenusgirls.blogspot.com/2007/04/post-for-liberal-chicks.htm



> *A post for liberal chicks... *
> who think it's acceptable to play politics with our mission in Afghanistan.
> 
> Sally Armstrong is the author of Veiled Threat: The Hidden Power of the Women of Afghanistan and a senior writer and editor at magazines such as Chatelaine, Canadian Living, and Homemakers. From Straight.com on keeping the debate focused on Afghan women.
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Apr 2007)

This isn't going to help:

Afstan: French faltering?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/04/afstan-french-faltering.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Apr 2007)

Mark have you considered digging up any of the old news article when the Libs signed the prisoner exchange deal? Might be some nuggets there.


----------



## stealthylizard (27 Apr 2007)

We are there because we want to be would be my best answer.  Not to mention the thousands that have enlisted or are trying to enlist from the past couple years to the present want to go there, myself included.  Most people that get into the military do so for many reasons, and one of the most cited examples is world wide travel, as well as trying to make a difference in people's lives.  Both of which are being accomplished by the Afghanistan operations.


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Apr 2007)

Colin P: If I have time but I don't remember reporting on it at the time.   There is this:

Embarrassment over detainees not new
Gaffe damaged Eggleton's standing with chretien [sic]
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b5c1c7c8-da64-471b-ac18-3c07120b5e7a

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (27 Apr 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Mark have you considered digging up any of the old news article when the Libs signed the prisoner exchange deal? Might be some nuggets there.



Signed by Gen.Hillier,  

Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees Between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

http://www.dnd.ca/site/operations/archer/agreement_e.asp


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (28 Apr 2007)

To respond to the eternal whining of the left wing; we hand our prisoners over to the Afghan authorities because it is Afghanistan.  We are there to help and support the Afghan government in restoring the safety, security, and stability of the Afghan people; we are not there to take over.  If we were an occupying power, then our prisoners would be ours to dispose of, and Afghan law would be of no concern to us.  We are not an occupying power, but an allied military responsible for establishing the security of a region of Afghanistan, and helping to provide the structure for a the reestablishment (some would argue establishment) of proper self rule. The Afghans must deal with the captured insurgents in their own way, in order that the prisoners can be reintegrated into Afghan society.  As the Iraqi experience has shown, Islamic prisoners of western powers become more, not less of a problem upon release; and the goal must be to return the Afghan born insurgents to Afghan society.
       For those who point to the failure of Soviet armour in Afghanistan, were we employing Soviet armour or Soviet doctrine then this would be a concern, but we are not, so how is this relevant?  For those occasions where direct firepower is required, or for spearheading an assault of fixed positions, tanks mean fewer Canadian casualties.  Fewer, not none.  We are soldiers, not stock brokers, and our business involves risk every single day.  Tanks do not mean that no Canadian infantrymen will have to stand into danger, the mean that Canadian officers will have more tools to bring to bear, and that sometimes we can use a 105 HESH to kick in a defended door, rather than an Infantryman.


----------



## McG (28 Apr 2007)

> NATO's Afghanistan effort at risk: officials
> Updated Sat. Apr. 28 2007 3:36 PM ET
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070428/afghan_efforts_070428/20070428?hub=TopStories


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Apr 2007)

Afghanistan and Iraq: the same war
_ChronicleHerald.ca_, April 29
http://thechronicleherald.ca/print_article.html?story=832249



> Four years ago, the U.S. and Britain unleashed war on Iraq, a nearly defenceless Third World country barely half the size of Saskatchewan. For 12 years prior to the invasion and occupation, Iraq had endured almost weekly U.S. and British bombing raids and the toughest sanctions in history, the "primary victims" of which, according to the UN Secretary General, were "women and children, the poor and the infirm." According to UNICEF, half a million children died from sanctions-related starvation and disease.
> 
> Then, in March 2003, the U.S. and Britain – possessors of more weapons of mass destruction than the rest of the world combined – attacked Iraq on a host of fraudulent pretexts, with cruise missiles, napalm, white phosphorous, cluster and bunker-buster bombs, and depleted uranium (DU) munitions...
> 
> ...



Law professors of Canada unite! You have nothing to destroy but the Canadian Forces!
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/57191/post-561863.html#msg561863

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## peaches (29 Apr 2007)

And Canada....  The Islamic Republic Of Canada, the prof's should love it.  Perhaps we could convince the talibs to lop of thier heads first..... :threat: :threat:


----------



## Flip (29 Apr 2007)

From the two articles today I get the notion that Canada's lefties
are getting a little cocky about the success of America's lefties.

Everybody knows why the US pulled out of Vietnam.
We conveniently forget what happened next.
I'm not sure but I seem to recall the ensuing civil war killed 
more people than the Vietnam war did. - correct me if I'm wrong.
The removal of US forces did not bring peace and stability.
The removal of US forces will not bring peace and stability
in Iraq or Afghanistan.

It seems OK on the surface to discredit GW Bush in the coming
liberal age of enlightenment - But how many people will be killed
by this kneejerk to the left?

I know - a purely rhetorical argument. I feel better now.


----------



## TCBF (30 Apr 2007)

"From the two articles today I get the notion that Canada's lefties are getting a little cocky about the success of America's lefties."

- Remember: Communism is an "International"

 ;D

- It was the US Democrats - in power in the early 60's - who engineered Diefenbaker's defeat and FUNDED Pearson's campaign.  Allegedly over "The Chief" going all wobbly and refusing the US warheads for the BOMARCs.

- Pearson - previously against the nukes, accepted.  This pee'd off Trudeau, who eventually suceeded in making the CF Nuke-Free when the Hornet replaced the Voodoo, some TWENTY YEARS later.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Apr 2007)

More news which is "not fit to print"; since it dosn't fit the MSM agenda:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006095



> Taliban Jack
> 
> Call your office; http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/world/middleeast/27kabul.html
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Apr 2007)

I wonder why this was on A12 in the _Globe_ today, not the front page.

Small loans, big dreams
A microfinance agency run by an expatriate is helping Afghan women achieve financial stability
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070430/AFGHAN30/International/international/international/3/3/14/



> Katrin Fakiri was eight years old when her family fled Afghanistan for the United States. Two decades later, she is one of thousands of ex-pats returning home to help rebuild a shattered economy -- one dollar at a time.
> 
> Ms. Fakiri is the managing director of Parwaz Microfinance Institution, a Canadian-backed, Kabul-based organization that gives $150 (U.S.) loans to women for businesses ranging from carpet weaving to bread baking.
> 
> ...



As for the _Globe's_ front page:

'The Canadians try to kill everybody'
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/11/canadians-try-to-kill-everybody.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Apr 2007)

A guest-post of mine at _Daimnation!_

Presenting the truth about Afghanistan
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009352.html

and a subsequent post by Damian Brooks at _The Torch_:

The principled left
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/04/principled-left.html

Do read Terry Glavin's own post (on which our posts above were based):

Canada and Afghanistan: The Vancouver Debate
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2007/04/canada-and-afghanistan-tyee-panel.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (30 Apr 2007)

Let's be clear who the "other side" really is:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009367



> Monday, April 30, 2007
> *An Insider's Account of Friday's Cairo Debriefing*
> 
> It is now abundantly clear that the core leadership of Canada’s so-called anti-war movement consists of obsessive Israel-haters, apologists for theocratic fascism, and admirers of the death cult Hamas and the totalitarian Hezbollah.
> ...


----------



## EOD4LIFE (1 May 2007)

One thing we all need to remember is Afghanistan/middleeast has been at war in one way or another longer than any of us have been born, they were at war when our great grandfathers/grandfathers/fathers were young soldiers and boys, they are bread _for_ War. If they can not be at war with the west, east, north, or south they will be at war amongst themselves. We are trying to change a way of life and trying to control a people who no nothing else...It is like trying to change a man eating tiger into a vegetarian.

I am not saying it is right or wrong. First and formost I am a solider, and I will/would not attempt to ponder to long outside of my bubble of knowledge. (A bubble which neither you, me nor the civilian population could probable comprehend or handle a magnitude beyond our realities of just making it home for your birthday...etc)
We are asked to fight and follow, however with free speech available to us, we border dangerously - daily - on contempt and insubordination's that would in most countries - such as those we fight and or protect - have us immediately killed.

PS I love this site, I have learned so much and do agree. all Canadians should read its contents, but only to appreciate us and what we do for them. This site is almost a method of making each and every one of us immortal, which is awesome cause all great super heroes are ...right?
LOL

Cpl Lisa Heck



> "I AM CONVINCED THAT ADHERENCE TO A PHYSICAL FITNESS PROGRAM WILL NOT ONLY
> INCREASE STRENGTH, ENERGY AND ENDURANCE, BUT ALSO IMPROVE AN INDIVIDUAL S
> ABILITY TO COPE WITH MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STRESSES. THIS IS LEADERSHIP BUSINESS,
> AND I EXPECT THE SUPPORT OF LEADERS AT ALL LEVELS TO ENSURE THE CF IS FIT TO
> ...


----------



## GAP (7 May 2007)

This article correctly points out some of the arguments of why we are in Afghanistan. 

Another interesting recent CBC news documentary was on last night regarding the Indonesian Al Qaeda group and how one of their former leaders was turned. The most interesting item was that they were all trained in Afghanistan. This has been the case over and over regarding these operatives in many countries, and we wonder why we should be there?

Why Canada should stay
May 07, 2007 04:30 AM  Seth G. Jones 
Article Link

Al Qaeda poses a threat to this country that will not decrease if we withdraw troops from Kandahar, says Seth G. Jones

There is a growing movement in Canada to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, illustrated by such newspaper headlines as: "Is it time to go?" and "Canada must leave Afghanistan." Such a move would be a tragic mistake. Withdrawing would be a severe blow to NATO's efforts in Afghanistan and would ultimately undermine Canada's own security.

There are at least three myths in the Canadian media that need to be dispelled.

The first myth is that Canada has no significant national security interests in Afghanistan. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Pakistan-Afghanistan front is the headquarters of Al Qaeda, which is a more competent international terrorist organization than it was on Sept. 11, 2001. It has close links with the Taliban and is led by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, who have been pivotal in the rise of suicide attacks against NATO soldiers in Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda possesses a robust strategic, logistics and public relations network in Pakistan, especially in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. This infrastructure has enabled it to play an important role in orchestrating international terrorist attacks. Canadian cities are also threatened. As an October 2006 Al Qaeda statement warned, Canada faces "an operation similar to New York, Madrid, London and their sisters, with the help of Allah."

Al Qaeda has been involved in an average of six major global attacks per year since 2002, up from one attack per year from 1995 to 2001. These attacks have spanned multiple regions, including Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa. It is also involved in hundreds of smaller attacks each year in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Al Qaeda's modus operandi has evolved and now includes a repertoire of more sophisticated improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks. Its organizational structure has also evolved, making it a more dangerous enemy. This includes a "bottom up" approach (encouraging independent thought and action from low-level operatives) and a "top down" one (issuing orders and coordinating a global terrorist enterprise with both highly synchronized and autonomous moving parts).

Al Qaeda poses a threat to Canada, which will not decrease if Canada withdraws. Canada's values are ultimately at odds with a terrorist organization that is committed to the restoration of the Caliphate in the Middle East and the establishment of a radical version of Islam. Al Qaeda needs to be destroyed, not appeased
More on link


----------



## midget-boyd91 (7 May 2007)

+100
Now if only the majority of articles being written could share that same frame of mind and show the importance rather than what we see today.
But I'll most likely be old and grey before that ever happens.


----------



## Flip (7 May 2007)

Wow! Never Ever thought i'd see this here!

 http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/210617 

Why Canada should stay

Al Qaeda poses a threat to this country that will not decrease if we withdraw troops from Kandahar, says Seth G. Jones

It would be easier ( for me ) if the media could be all good or all bad.
This opinion in the Star just confuses me. ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 May 2007)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Afghan lawmakers call for talks with Taliban, halt to NATO military operations*
Associated Press, 8 May 07
Article link

Afghan lawmakers called for dialogue with Afghan Taliban fighters and an end to military operations by international forces unless they first come under attack, in a draft law passed Tuesday.

The draft law, which was passed by a voice vote in the upper house of parliament, said a differentiation must be made between Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaida fighters, and that negotiations should be held with Taliban militants from Afghanistan to persuade them to accept the Afghan government.

The resolution also called for international forces to end military operations unless they are attacked or if they have first consulted with the Afghan army, government or police.

Lt. Col. David Accetta, a U.S. military spokesman, said he was aware of the lawmakers' action but did not have an immediate response. "It remains to be seen what impact it will have," he said.

A spokeswoman at NATO's International Security Assistance Force declined immediate comment.

The bill would also need to be approved by the lower house and then signed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai before coming law. Karzai's spokesman couldn't be reached late Tuesday.

Karzai has previously called for negotiations to be held with Afghan members of the Taliban, and NATO military officials have said they would rather convince Taliban fighters to join the government than kill them during military action.

Western and Afghan officials say only a few members of the Taliban are hardcore, ideological fighters, and that many of the militants fight only for a paycheck or because they are forced to. Officials also say that many of the Taliban's hardcore leaders live in Pakistan, a charge Pakistan denies.

The draft bill says that Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaida fighters are the enemy of Afghanistan.

It also says that when the Afghan army and police ranks reach their target numbers, a timetable should be drafted for international military forces to leave the country. The army and police likely won't reach their target goals for several years.


----------



## MikeM (8 May 2007)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Afghan lawmakers called for dialogue with Afghan Taliban fighters and an end to military operations by international forces *unless they first come under attack*, in a draft law passed Tuesday.



Let Taliban pre-empt? no thanks, terrible idea.

There's no way the Taliban are willing to roll over and allow the AFG gov't to function on it's own, considering the Taliban were overthrown with force, I think they'll continue to fight to try and get it back.

EDIT: Modified for format error.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 May 2007)

We are there under their invitation.  If they don't want us there no longer then that's fine and most of the time we didn't fire first, hard to find the fockers.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (9 May 2007)

Talk and negotiate with the Taliban....... ???  
Does anyone else remember what happened when the Brits did that with the Taliban in Musa Qala? :brickwall:


----------



## MikeM (9 May 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> We are there under their invitation.  If they don't want us there no longer then that's fine and most of the time we didn't fire first, hard to find the fockers.



Very true Quag, majority of the time it was reactive rather than proactive, however I do not think any types of restrictions should be made, and I certainly believe that talking with the Taliban will solve nothing.


----------



## KevinB (9 May 2007)

I view this more of an approach that the US Military has used to great sucess in the previously disasterous Anbar province in Iraq.
  Due to the extreme nature of Al-Q and some insurgents they have isolated the Tribal Elders and Shieks (one of many spellings).

 If the gov't can negotaite with them and still maintain their authority this makes a win win situation - as you will have reduced the enemy and increased friendly support in the area, all without combat.

In Anbar the local Sunni population have sided with the Iraqi gov't and MNFI to create a much more stabilized situation.

 The extremists will kill any and all who dont go along with them and their views -- this is hardly a way to sustain a guerilla operation and downs them to failure.


Remember the 100% solution for Afghanistan is to have a stable Islamic Republic - capable of enforcing their laws.


----------



## Weinie (9 May 2007)

This Hour's top story:

      Layton Calls Secret Afghanistan Visit Success - Discussions with Senate "Positive"


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 May 2007)

MikeM I totally agree.


----------



## KevinB (10 May 2007)

Taliban Jack is missing the point -- he wanted to break into full negotiations -- from what I see here a portion of the Afghan gov't is saying they want to consider dealign with some of the Afghan taliban.  Big Difference from throwing in the towle that JL wished to do.


----------



## GAP (11 May 2007)

Hmmm....only the Americans and the Canadians fight?

Warrior seeks an armySidelined Afghan heavyweight says he could tame Taliban with the right force  
By SCOTT TAYLOR May 11, 2007 
Article Link

SHEBIRGHAN, Afghanistan -- The gates of the compound were hurriedly pulled aside and three black Lexus armoured 4X4s raced into the courtyard. Braking hastily, the vehicles disgorged a dozen heavily armed guards who immediately established a protective cordon. 

With the dust still settling, a giant of a man strode through the parked convoy in a flowing stripped green robe. Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, one of the most notorious former Afghan warlords, arrived for an interview. 

As the primary commander of the Northern Alliance, Dostum's troops were instrumental in helping the U.S. to collapse the Taliban in 2001. However, in the post-war cycle of violence, instability and insurgency, the general has only played a marginal role. Despite winning a million votes in the 2004 election process, Dostum was excluded from President Hamid Karzai's cabinet. 

Appointed to the symbolic post of army chief of staff, Dostum says he feels the time is right for him to once again enter the fray. 

"I'll collect 10,000 fighters and you give us 10,000 fighters from the international community ... and then you'll see what will happen in just six months," said Dostum. "I would use 5,000 fighters as a reserve and 5,000 as an offensive force to push the Taliban. I am sure we would push the Taliban even out of Waziristan (Pakistan), not just Afghanistan." 

The creation of a force of veteran Afghan fighters would serve to buy time for the fledgling Afghan National Army and then allow them to better prepare for combat with the Taliban, he said. 

"Every day the ANA is engaged in the fighting -- but just 10 Taliban can disrupt an entire battalion of troops," said Dostum. "What will happen if you stage a wrestling match between a 12-year-old and a 6-month-old infant? Obviously the ANA cannot match the experience of those soldiers who have fought before." 

Dostum says the tactics employed by the Taliban against the ANA and coalition forces are the same Afghan fighters used to oust the Soviets. "In these days, 100 Taliban fighters attack a district and destroy everything, kill the police chief, kill the governor and then simply vanish. Then the army comes," explained Dostum. "The Taliban withdraw and the only people left to die are civilians." 

Dostum's criticism of the ANA's inability and unwillingness to enter into combat also extends to the foreign coalition forces, which he says have a mixed record of battlefield efficiency. 

"I have friends who have given me intelligence that the people really fighting the Taliban from the international community are the United States soldiers and the Canadian soldiers," said Dostum. "Other nationals are not fighting. They are just in defensive positions." 

In recent months Dostum has held meetings with a number of foreign ambassadors and military commanders from the international community. "If President Karzai gives me the power, I can guarantee him and assure the international community and the people of Afghanistan that we can play a significant role in defeating and breaking the back of the Taliban," Dostum said. 
More on link


----------



## Kirkhill (11 May 2007)

Maybe this puts a different slant on "Talking with the Taliban"



> Talking replaces guns in war with the Taliban
> By Tom Coghlan in Gereshk
> Last Updated: 2:06am BST 11/05/2007
> 
> ...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=GAS3FYDU1B3QFQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/05/11/wafghan11.xml

And perhaps this discussion could be taken together with Dostum Rashid's offer of 10,000 troops to "finish off" the Taliban including those in Waziristan. 

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/60812.0.html


Problem 1 - definition of the Taliban (Mullah Omar et al; MO and Drug Lords;  MO, Drug Lords and anybody in arms; Or Rashid's definition - all Pashtun).

Problem 2 - apparently many of the esteemed Senators are also Drug Lords and I seem to recall hearing the Rashid was involved in the trade as well.

Is this actually an early indication of the Druggie Senators suing for peace?

Suppose:

NATO spring operations have been effective in shutting down the Helmand valley highway to Baluchistan, crimping opium exports.  No esports, no money.

NATO has successfully pushed the Druggie/Taliban back from Gereshk, Lashkar Gar, Maywand and have them held at Sangin, poised to move to Musa Qala and Tarin Kowt.  Druggies are getting squeezed despite the Taliban.  Suicide bombings won't solve that problem.

NATO hearts and minds campaigns, and just exposure to foreigners who are at least not worse than their old masters, is having an effect and prompting the grass to rise up and complain about the elephants fighting.  The locals are not as easily cowed or as productive - even if their is a bumper crop (Taliban have apparently been seen working in the fields to help bring in the harvest).

NATO projects are starting to dry up the supply of low cost labour for harvesting, transport and security.

Net effects  - drug lords in the Senate are seeing profits under threat and have decided enough is enough.  The Taliban, who has been their "muscle" may now be seen as a liability.  

Consequently they are willing to parley in the South and stabilize the situation and at the same time turn on the Taliban - Rashid's offer is just a concrete example.  Now it might be to his and some Senators advantage to clear up the Taliban before the US and the Afghan government can get to them.

Might there be some merit on taking Dostum at his word but dispersing his battalions amongst ANA and allied forces and keeping a tight leash on them to allow them to "find" the Taliban?

All wild supposition on my part with many assumptions .....

But I think there might be a change happening here.


----------



## McG (12 May 2007)

Negotiation between the Afghan government and Taliban elements is not a bad idea.  However, it does not require giving-up the fight before an agreement is reached.  It must also be the purview of the elected Afghan governmen, and the Taliban must be willing to negotiate. (It cannot be Jack Layton dictating “make an agreement with them or we go home” menwhile the Taliban don't want to talk as a collective)

Where Taliban leaders (or even leaders in neutral or grey positions) can be brought on to our side by negotiation, then the Afghan government should be engaging those leaders.  One of the things we should be doing, as SOP, is identifying to the Afghan government where these opportunities exist.

Where we can, we must help the local leaders (with their local concerns & problems) connect with their provincial authorities.  This works toward reconstruction at the same time that it displaces the power of belligerent Taliban elements.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Warrior seeks an army
> Sidelined Afghan heavyweight says he could tame Taliban with the right force
> By SCOTT TAYLOR May 11, 2007


I don't think re-empowering warlords & militia is a good idea for the country.  If these fighters are available, then they would help the country far more as leaders & a pool of experience within the developing ANA.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 May 2007)

I wonder if Rashid would accept becoming Honorary Colonel-in-Chief of Dostum's Own Regiment, a regular regiment of the ANA?  Heck it worked fine enough for the Campbells and the Covenanters.  ;D


----------



## Old Sweat (12 May 2007)

Kirkhill,

As someone with a father born in Edinburgh, all I can say is that seventeenth century Scotland is hardly worth emulation by anyone, least of all the Afghans.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 May 2007)

Old Sweat, as someone whose relatives were chased across the Carrick Hills by Bloody Clavers, I couldn't agree more.   The problem is I think Afghanistan is already emulating 16th century Scotland.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 May 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Taliban Jack is missing the point -- he wanted to break into full negotiations -- from what I see here a portion of the Afghan gov't is saying they want to consider dealign with some of the Afghan taliban.  Big Difference from throwing in the towle that JL wished to do.



Agreed much of the Taliban seems to be made up of the Southern Pastuns with tribal links to Afghanistan and the NWF, working to get the wedge in between them and the hardliners will help break the back of the insurgency and the Afghan government has been offering up amenesty for low rankers and other offers for several years and was in high level talks back in 2003 (date?) with portions of the tribes and Taliban leadership.


----------



## Flip (14 May 2007)

To that end Colin it makes sense.

Taliban Jack needs to butt the hell out of it because it's 
a "family" thing, between Afghans.

If some not so bad guys want to join the good guys who are  
parliment to offer comment, or throw in any sponge?
( accounting for security concerns of course )

Jack has no idea how many deals he might queer or the 
effects his brand of nonsense has in the region.

I seem to recall something about confidential talks between 
Canada and an Arab country last month that came up in 
Parliment because of a leak. (I'll look for some details)
By the way - Thanks Jack.


----------



## a_majoor (14 May 2007)

From "The Torch"

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/



> Monday, May 14, 2007
> *What we should really be talking about*
> 
> I recently received an e-mail I thought I'd share with you:
> ...


----------



## Chilly (14 May 2007)

a_majoor,

Thanks for posting this letter, not only is it a well written, but a well thought out opinion which many within the military agree with.

And as the writer simply states at the end of the letter, in reference to our elected officials in Ottawa "Our soldiers deserve better from you."

Chilly


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 May 2007)

A post at _The Torch_:

How we can lose in Afstan
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-we-can-lose-in-afstan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Flanker (19 May 2007)

Canada is in Afghanistan today to –

• help Afghanistan rebuild;
• defend our national interests; and
• ensure Canadian leadership in world affairs.

In 1979 when Soviet troops entered Afghanistan, we heard a lot stuff like that.
Then Soviets were heavily critisized for their mission and trying to prevent developping a terrorist movement on the USSR south border.
We fought with terrorists financed and armed by the US government and some of its allies.

Now the NATO troops are there again. We hear the same nice words from the Canadian media.
Nothing changed. 

One must understand that the real solution for the Afghan problem is not democracy, presidential elections or NATO military presence. 

It is economy. E-C-O-N-O-M-Y.

Soviets heavily invested in the Afghan economy and infrastructure. 
Nothing similar is done now by NATO countries.

I am sorry for Canadian soldiers and officiers duying there just because of the Canadian politicians fearing their US big brothers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 May 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Canada is in Afghanistan today to –
> 
> • help Afghanistan rebuild;
> • defend our national interests; and
> ...



Look HERE, Flanker, at the last paragraph.  The Ruxted Group's advice to Lawrence Martin applies equally to you.

You are right that we are in Afghanistan because of _big brother_ USA.  The prime minster of the day (back in 2003) wanted to find a way to get and keep Canadian troops too busy to go to Iraq.  He didn't want to say, "No, Mr. President, Canada does not believe Iraq is a good operation."  He didn't believe it was a bad operation - just one which was unpopular in Quebec.  Instead he wanted to say, "Sorry, Mr. President, but we are too busy fighting your _war on terror_ to join you in Iraq."  Thus he sent his defence minister to Brussels to beg and borrow our way into ISAF.  His successor sent us to Kandahar because, primarily, the public relations experts liked the sound of _provincial reconstruction_ better than _Kabul security_.  The problem was that the PM wasn't very quick off the mark and all the nice, safe _provincial reconstruction teams_ were 'taken' by the Europeans.  You do recall who those prime minsiters were, don't you Flanker?  Just in case, their names were Chretien and Martin and they led Liberal  governments.

But that's an aside.

Only the terminally stupid (which takes in most of the Canadian _left_ and the terrorists apologists and accomplices in the _peace movement_ (maybe better named the _kill the Jews_ movement)) believe that there is *any* relationship between what we (Canada, NATO and ISAF) are doing and what the bloody Russians tried to do.


----------



## observor 69 (19 May 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Only the terminally stupid (which takes in most of the Canadian _left_ and the terrorists apologists and accomplices in the _peace movement_ (maybe better named the _kill the Jews_ movement)) believe that there is *any* relationship between what we (Canada, NATO and ISAF) are doing and what the bloody Russians tried to do.



Thanks for my evening smile Mr. Campbell.


----------



## Flanker (19 May 2007)

Yeah, that is worth a smile.

Mr. Campbell

Let's put the offensive terms aside. They do not help mutual understanding.   

It does not matter how to call, "bloody Russians" or "nice Canadians", the missions are basically the same: to overthrow the existing government, to put a controlled president, and to help him suppress any opposition. Point.

All that stuff like "democracy", "freedom" or "international duty" is no more than buzz words "a la mode". Nothing more. A killed civilian would not be more happy to be killed for democracy than for communism. I think it is trivial.

More civilian casualties during Soviet war is explained by a longer war and larger military operations due to an active US government participation in financing and traning the opposition forces. Moreover, Soviets controlled a much larger territory, not only Kabul suburbs as NATO does actually.

What I want to say by all this?

Well, looking at "Enduring Freedom", I see no much difference comparing to any previous foreign intervention in Afghanistan. The same scenario, same pitfalls. 

I predict that when NATO will leave the country the "democratically elected" president will leave also. May be by the same plane.  :

Again, I do not blame soldiers and officiers following orders and doing what they sworn to do. 

But, if you look at the country history, you can easily doubt that changing a tribal society into a western-style secular country is so easy as just expropriating arms and killing "terrorists".


----------



## muskrat89 (19 May 2007)

> All that stuff like "democracy", "freedom" or "international duty" is no more than buzz words "a la mode"



Oh - and is that how you encourage "mutual understanding"? Tread lightly...  Differing opinions are fine, but arrogance will get you nowhere fast, on this forum.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## Flanker (19 May 2007)

I have no intention to offend anyone. 
Let's put the words in the right context and separate government pro-war propaganda and real life.
For civilians, any war is always blood and dirt.
For a country's natives, foreign troops and a foreign order brought by them are pretty always artificial.
In that sense, a war for democracy and war for communism have no difference.


----------



## cavalryman (20 May 2007)

Son, you should never come to a gunfight armed with a knife, or to a debate armed with nothing more than polemics, and pretty weak ones at that.  Just one "for example" to demolish your argument.  Considering that fascism and communism are pretty much the same animal, i.e. totalitarian regimes with a tendency towards genocide, let's reach back 60+ years into history and look at Europe (or the Far East, if you want - I can pull examples galore from either theatre).  



			
				Flanker said:
			
		

> For a country's natives, foreign troops and a foreign order brought by them are pretty always artificial.


Go ahead and ask the Belgians, Dutch and others what they thought of foreign troops and foreign order under a) German occupation and b) Allied liberation.  I think you'll find that there is a wee bit of a difference



			
				Flanker said:
			
		

> In that sense, a war for democracy and war for communism have no difference.


Again, history has proven that there is somewhat of a difference - it's so obvious to any well-read person that I suggest some reading of your own to broaden your horizons.  Using my WW2 analogy, I doubt anyone would equate, morally or otherwise, the German (and Soviet - up to 1941) wars of aggression with the Allied effort to eliminate said aggression.



			
				Flanker said:
			
		

> Let's put the words in the right context and separate government pro-war propaganda and real life.


Real life, son?  I suggest you talk to anyone who has served in Afghanistan for some first hand experience with real life.  That being said, we can leave the propaganda to the polemicists.


----------



## Flanker (20 May 2007)

Cavalryman,

Sorry, but you completely missed my point.
The WWII example is also inappropriate because the european countries were liberated from a foreign fascist regime.
But as a good example, you can look at the difference between the afterwar Western and Eastern Europe and changes that happened after USSR withdrew its troops in the 80-90-s.

Now, what is the real life?
The real life is that actually we are observing an attempt to deliver democracy in Afghanistan at bayonet points. 
I do not question the work done by soldiers and officiers but that evolution way has never worked in the past considering that Afghanistan is a tribal muslim society. Mass civilian casualties also do not add trust to foreigners. 

There are just things that money and arms cannot buy. It does not matter how strongly you believe in the mission goals.

In many cases, a native will support and undestand better a Taliban fighter than a good-intentionned Western soldier. We saw that every day in the 80-s during the Afghan war. This is not a difference between communism and democracy, this is simply a big cultural and religion difference and "foreigner" effect.


----------



## Samsquanch (20 May 2007)

Flanker you want a taste of real life...... an estimated 35% of gross domestic product around 2.7 billion is earned through illicit poppy cultivation. Despite massive injections of foreign aid the majority of the Afghan population continues to suffer from insufficient food, clothing, housing and medical care, with three out of ten children dying before the age of five half of those survive being malnourished. The UN estimates 35,000 Afghan children died in 2006 alone from measles simply because they were not vaccinated. The UN de-mining commission has stated that at the current rate of clearance it will take 500 years to clear the mines from Afghanistan completely.

Get a grip they need us and other countries to help out.... be it bayonet point or not.


----------



## observor 69 (20 May 2007)

Flanker you do realize that we [ISAF] would love to get the hellout of Afghanistan? Our one and only goal is to put the country in a state where it can determine it's on destiny. This is not a popular objective with the Taliban who are using force and terror in an effort to regain control of Afghanistan. 
For a further explanation your homework is to follow the advice given by previous comments. Start reading broadly on the goals and methods of ISAF. In fact read the discussions and links on this site and you will get a good education on this topic. Enduring Freedom is primarily an American effort but again they would like nothing better than to see a stable Afghanistan. Let me add that there orders come from a Bush government which has a credibility problem.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 May 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Yeah, that is worth a smile.
> ...
> 
> It does not matter how to call, "bloody Russians" or "nice Canadians", the missions are basically the same: to overthrow the existing government, to put a controlled president, and to help him suppress any opposition. Point.
> ...



Well that certainly falls into the category of tales which are "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."  You can decide for yourself if you fall into the Bard's definition of the tale-tellers.  All I can say is that your knowledge of history and current affairs is so weak as to be worse than useless.


----------



## Flanker (20 May 2007)

Samsquanch said:
			
		

> Flanker you want a taste of real life...... an estimated 35% of gross domestic product around 2.7 billion is earned through illicit poppy cultivation.
> ...
> Get a grip they need us and other countries to help out.... be it bayonet point or not.



I think you are missing some facts.

1. The poppy production soared since NATO invaded the country. What a coincidence!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan doubled between 2002 and 2003 to a level 36 times higher  than in the last year of rule by the Taliban, according to White House figures released Friday. 

A younger brother of Karzai is "a prominent figure in the global drug trade, controlling a significant proportion of Afghan heroin production" 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,1381860,00.html

2. They may be need us. But before entering a sovereign country, we would be better to ask what exactly they need from us. When you need financial help, you will not appreciate someone entering your house, killing your relatives, destructing your goods and establishing his rules, just because that is how the invader "sees" your future.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 May 2007)

1. 5 years old, got anything recent. [ actually your "Karzai" story disputes your first claim, maybe you should read your links first?]
2. We provide only what they ask, if the Govt. asks us to leave, we do.  

 Anything relevent to add?


----------



## Flanker (20 May 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Our one and only goal is to put the country in a state where it can determine it's on destiny.



In that case, be ready to stay there for the next century or so.

No doubt that you have good intentions. 
The problem is that the Afghan people does not undestand these intentions as you undestand  them.
They will be graceful for a jam can that you give to them in a morning and kill you in the evening because Koran says that.  

Do you think "freedom" and "democracy" are properly undestood and fit any country accros the world?
You would be surprised but it is not the case. There is a question of an evolution path that the country should follow.
Let them decide without an external military presence.


----------



## Flanker (20 May 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> 2. We provide only what they ask, if the Govt. asks us to leave, we do.


I will be greatly surprised if the marionnette government sitting under your military protection ask you to leave.
That would be suicidal for them and they know it. So you can stay as long as you want.
But do not expect Afghans will love you for anything you are doing there.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 May 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> They will be graceful for a jam can that you give to them in a morning and kill you in the evening because Koran says that.



You racist little tweeb......



			
				Flanker said:
			
		

> You would be surprised but it is not the case. There is a question of an evolution path that the country should follow.



In the meantime we sit back and let 1000's upon 1000's  be slaughtered, uneducated, and convinced that all Infidels should die?
Get real.....





			
				Flanker said:
			
		

> Let them decide without an external military presence.



Didn't realize Osama was from there.....


----------



## aesop081 (20 May 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> They will be graceful for a jam can that you give to them in a morning and kill you in the evening because Koran says that.



No it does not......chose your words carefully as i am alot less patient than others here


----------



## George Wallace (20 May 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> Now, what is the real life?



Having read most of your posts, I am glad you have made that statement.  I don't believe you have a full grasp on what is real and what isn't.  You are writing as if you are affiliated in someway with the CPA, and we all know here that they are strong sympathizers of all that is Anti-American, Anti-Zionist, Anti-Democratic, and Anti-Capitalist.  In the past they favoured the Communist philosophies and with the fall of the Wall, have switched to supporting Islamist Fundamentalists.   





			
				Flanker said:
			
		

> There are just things that money and arms cannot buy. It does not matter how strongly you believe in the mission goals.
> 
> In many cases, a native will support and undestand better a Taliban fighter than a good-intentionned Western soldier.



You have contradicted yourself.  It seems that the Taliban are able to do a lot with money and arms.  It seems they have no problem raising 'Believers' to follow their mission goals.  

Perhaps you ought to be addressing them, in your naive outlook on how peace can be brought to that Region.  I am sure a few here will gladly chip in to buy you airfare to that part of the world.  We will even pay the more expensive 'one way' fare for you.   ;D


----------



## Flanker (20 May 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You racist little tweeb......



I expected members of the directing staff being more polite.
I think you know, Osama is a guy trained by CIA and closely tied to the Saudi Royal family that stays one of the best friends of US. So you may be better to ask CIA where he is, and why it get out on TV just in the right moments to give more support  to Bush's relection. Think about this.


----------



## muskrat89 (20 May 2007)

> I expected members of the directing staff being more polite.



Your expectations are irrelevant. This is a private site, and you are here at the pleasure of the owner. Once again, you display dual standards. Your wish for "mutual understanding" includes condescending comments about another's opinion. Your "quest for politeness" from the Staff does not include your own (prejudiced) comments.

Let me be crystal clear - unless you change your style of debate, your days (hours?) here are numbered. We have had holier-than-thou, enlightened intellectuals drop in here before, and chant their enlightened mantras to we, the ignorant. Many posters here have been in the regions you speak of, interacting with the populations. They know what they have seen and experienced. 

Your last warning.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (20 May 2007)

I guess all those women and children now able to go to school and actually learn are of no account in this equation eh? The training facilities that are being built to improve the prospects of the population don't count either right?
I wonder what South Korea would be like today if the Western World had not intervened? they'd be starving to death and ignorant as sin like their comrades in the North. I think the people of the south would disagree with the proposition that it didn't matter whose soldiers were fighting there...the soldiers of democracy and freedom or the soldiers of communism and totalitarianism.
Some people need to give their heads a shake.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 May 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> I expected members of the directing staff being more polite.
> I think you know, Osama is a guy trained by CIA and closely tied to the Saudi Royal family that stays one of the best friends of US. So you may be better to ask CIA where he is, and why it get out on TV just in the right moments to give more support  to Bush's relection. Think about this.
> ...



Who trained Osama bin Laden was not the reason a Mod called you a racist.  You suggested that the Koran advocates murdering the person who has just done you a service.  I think that seriously mangles the truth.  I think it insults Muslims and their holy book.  I don't know how many Muslims are members of Army.ca but, given their level of representation in Canada and in the CF, I suspect there are several.  I'm surprised the Mods didn't show you the door; it seems to me you have gratuitously insulted other members.

I think you're a troll, I hope you're a troll because the alternative is that you're a racist fool.


----------



## George Wallace (20 May 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> In that case, be ready to stay there for the next century or so.
> 
> No doubt that you have good intentions.
> The problem is that the Afghan people does not undestand these intentions as you undestand  them.
> ...



How naive can you get?

PART I  Tell me how long it took to bring peace to Europe after WW II?  When did the last Allied Troops withdraw out of Germany?  
PART II  Tell us all how long it took to bring peace to Japan after WW II?  When did the last Allied Troops pull out of Japan?  
PART III  Tell us how long it took to bring peace to Korea?  When did the last Allied UN Troops leave Korea?  
PART IV  How long did it take to bring Peace to Cyprus?  When did all the UN Forces finally withdraw from Cyprus?   
PART V  How long did it take to bring Peace to the Middle East?  When did all the UN Forces finally leave the Middle East?

Do we have to go on to any more PARTs?

Do you seriously think that we can stabilize and bring peace to Afghanistan with the snap of our fingers?  Get real!  Even Hollywood can't do that.  

PS.  You should try to use SPELL CHECK to correct your "understand", "understood" and other words that you are omitting or adding letters to.


----------



## McG (20 May 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> One must understand that the real solution for the Afghan problem is not democracy, presidential elections or NATO military presence.
> 
> It is economy. E-C-O-N-O-M-Y.


The Afghanistan solution is far more complex than the one dimensional system that you’ve broken it down to.  One facet most certainly is economy, and you may be right that we could/should be doing more on this front.  However, it is also essential to have a functioning government that will lead the Afghan people to the future they want.



			
				Flanker said:
			
		

> I think you know, Osama is a guy trained by CIA and closely tied to the Saudi Royal family that stays one of the best friends of US.


Thank you for your guilty by association irrelevancy.  Well, “irrelevant” unless you believe that the wife, children, siblings, parents, cousins, uncles, aunts & grandparents of a bank robber should also go to jail for the crimes of the bank robber (in which case, I’d just say you are wrong).


----------



## Flip (20 May 2007)

These trolls ALWAYS frame the thing as US(meaning imperialist white guys) vs Them
(meaning the total population of Afghanistan).  
They also fail to propose a resolution or remedy to a complex situation.

First - The Taliban were not kicked out of power solely by western forces.
The Northern Alliance who represent a majority in Afghanistan were
made it possible to oust the Taliban in a way Western voters could accept.

Second- The Northern Alliance form a large part of the current government 
of Afghanistan, as they should.

Third- NATO is there to support that government, warts and all, because they
were legitimately elected and not to do so would inhumane.

There is no liberation - or even a faintly happy ending if NATO were to leave.

The troll as a species appears to have a particular fondness for anarchy.
Law and order are anathema to them and actually so are the facts.
The troll is often motivated by feelings and appearances they do not understand.
The troll often seeks to apply a double standard and would like to win an 
argument based on the thinest evidence available.

Mr Wallace brought Japan as example to us.
Good example of "American Imperialism" at work.

I hope I remember the details correctly;

The current constitution of Japan was written by American staff Officers and
imposed by force at the end of WWII. This constitution has remained largely
unchanged by the Japanese for 60 years.(there were some minor changes in the 90s)

Japans' economy was subjected to American management models and practices
in much the same way and Japan is now one of the great economies on earth.

Having democracy and prosperity forced on them the Japanese are only now
getting over it. :

Yea - right, democracy can't be transplanted.


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 May 2007)

In any case the CIA did not "train" or work directly with bin Laden.  From an online session with Steve Coll, author of "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001" (Penguin Press, 2004):
http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/ghostwars.html



> Wheaton, Md.: There have been accusations from the left that have directly accused the CIA of funding and training bin Laden. Is there any truth to this ?
> 
> Steve Coll: I did not discover any evidence of direct contact between CIA officers and bin Laden during the 1980s, when they were working more or less in common cause against the Soviets. CIA officials, including Tenet, have denied under oath that such contact took place. The CIA was certainly aware of bin Laden's activities, beginning in the mid- to late-1980s, and they generally looked favorably on what he was doing at that time. But bin Laden's direct contacts were with Saudi intelligence and to some extent Pakistani intelligence, not with the Americans. There's a lot more detail about this in the book than I have space for here.



There is more detail on this in the first full paragraph of p. 87 of the hardcover edition.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9781594200076&itm=2

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (20 May 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> In any case the CIA did not "train" or work directly with bin Laden.  From an online session with Steve Coll, author of "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001" (Penguin Press, 2004):
> http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9781594200076&itm=2
> 
> There is more detail on this in the first full paragraph of p. 87 of the hardcover edition.
> ...



MARK...how dare you challenge a left wing myth? they have the only truth did you not know that?? They never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy story. :


----------



## Samsquanch (20 May 2007)

Flanker that was a small piece of what I wrote.... it's amazing what it looks like after bending it a little to fit your needs. 
Happy trails


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 May 2007)

Flanker might benefit from an encounter with reality, and with Duke:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0049730/

Troll off whilst one Fords on.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Flanker (21 May 2007)

Flanker said:
			
		

> They will be graceful for a jam can that you give to them in a morning and kill you in the evening because Koran says that.



I see many of you have taken this phrase as a straight anti-muslim statement, which was not.
First, my sincere apologies for this misunderstanding and improper language.

Put instead "tribal leaders", "opposition radicals" or whatever else. 

What I mean is that just the fact to provide financial/material help does not mean you buy automatically the right to change a nation's law, traditions and customs.

These are two separate things.

Why this distinction is important?
First, because in spite of external legitimacy, elections and so on, many people still see the actual Afghan president as a western-provided leader. That is fatal for him and for his authority.
Second, as we saw in other countries, to transplant an external political system you need the both:

1. Working economy
2. Long external military presence (tens of years)

If one of them is missing, all the efforts end up a new civil war, instability and ruined country.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 May 2007)

Then I will retract my "racist little tweeb" comment.........


----------



## Kirkhill (21 May 2007)

Flanker seems to be saying what many others, in CF uniform as well as others have said.  Every society has its ingrained "natural" leadership structure.  The fastest way to establish order is to work with that structure.  The fastest way to create disorder is to work against the grain of that structure.

Trying to impose a new culture, in particular a new leadership structure, works against the grain.  What the Brits in southern Iraq tried to do, what Petraeus is currently trying to do, what Karzai did initially with his grand Loya Jirga, was to work with the grain of the leadership.  Then, as General Hillier and the PM have said, agreeing with Flanker, it is a work of decades if not generations, to divert the culture to "modern" practices.

We use the expression "Peace, Order and Good Governance".  It is becoming clearer to me that we have the sequence wrong.  It should be "Order, Good Governance, Peace".

What Iraq and Afghanistan are demonstrating to our generation is that Security is the first requirement of any society.  For security to be possible it is necessary to establish Order - and that can require cracking a few heads but preferably as few as possible.  This can be accomplished by getting the "natural" leaders on side to control their people and their instincts.

Once Order prevails then trust in the Government (whoever that is - but ultimately it is the person with the biggest stick) can be built up by demonstrating Good Governance.  If the Government is supplying Security, delivering Justice and Patronage, not being abusive with its big stick, supplying Good Governance and ultimately being worthy of Trust  then Peace will prevail.

The meat industry doesn't let spectators onto the kill floor and they are cautious about the making of sausages.  They are both messy, necessary processes that are not reflected in the final product.

Establishing order is likewise a messy, necessary process that would be better off not seen.  Unfortunately that is no longer possible these days so the only option is to try and educate the squeemish to accept the necessity for the mess, figure out how to keep the mess to a minimum and how to clean it up as quickly as possible.  That, in my humble opinion, means making deals with the devil himself if necessary, then trying to mend his ways, or separate him from his flock, or "encourage" a local replacement - even if that means allowing localized disorder to prevail for a while.


----------



## observor 69 (21 May 2007)

Which makes that to often used term "win" irrelevant. ISAF should leave when the Afghanistan government is "master of it's own house." 
Our military leadership is quite aware of this fact, but few Canadians give them credit for having this understanding of the situation.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 May 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Which makes that to often used term "win" irrelevant. ISAF should leave when the Afghanistan government is "master of it's own house."
> Our military leadership is quite aware of this fact, but few Canadians give them credit for having this understanding of the situation.



And that's a fact.


----------



## McG (21 May 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Flanker seems to be saying what many others, in CF uniform as well as others have said.  Every society has its ingrained "natural" leadership structure.  The fastest way to establish order is to work with that structure.  The fastest way to create disorder is to work against the grain of that structure.


Our approach is to use that structure & develop its connections (between local elders and provincial authorities) in order to get all levels of Afghan government working together toward their vision of their country/province/village's future.


----------



## Dale Denton (24 May 2007)

In the event that we had to leave afghanistan in 2009, could soldiers choose to stay there? Sort of like the Boer War (although that was a LONG time ago). What about the option of having troops choose to either stay or leave? So instead of a regular unit being sent on rotation, there would be people who choose to go. Would this work at all? Providing that Canada still provides the same amount of aid to the country and all troops got the same about of benefits over there as they do now. Maybe if a cap on how many people could be their (2500).


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 May 2007)

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> In the event that we had to leave afghanistan in 2009, could soldiers choose to stay there? Sort of like the Boer War (although that was a LONG time ago). What about the option of having troops choose to either stay or leave? So instead of a regular unit being sent on rotation, there would be people who choose to go. Would this work at all? Providing that Canada still provides the same amount of aid to the country and all troops got the same about of benefits over there as they do now. Maybe if a cap on how many people could be their (2500).



In the South African War, those Canadian soldiers who "chose to stay" did so by taking their release and then enlisting in local units like the South African Constabulary.  They did not remain there on the Canadian payroll or with Canadian benefits.  Once the Canadian Government decides to cease military operations in Afghanistan, there will not be an option for soldiers to voluntarily remain behind as independent operators and collect the same benefits.


----------



## Dale Denton (24 May 2007)

I had no idea they enlisted in South African units. Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 May 2007)

Col (ret'd) Alain Pelerrin replies to an editorial in the _Toronto Star_:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/217484



> *It's too early to leave*
> 
> May 25, 2007 04:30 AM
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (25 May 2007)

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> In the event that we had to leave afghanistan in 2009, could soldiers choose to stay there? Sort of like the Boer War (although that was a LONG time ago). What about the option of having troops choose to either stay or leave? So instead of a regular unit being sent on rotation, there would be people who choose to go. Would this work at all? Providing that Canada still provides the same amount of aid to the country and all troops got the same about of benefits over there as they do now. Maybe if a cap on how many people could be their (2500).



I think that's called....becoming a mercenary.


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 May 2007)

A good column by Rex Murphy:
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070526/COMURPHY26/Headlines/headdex/headdexComment/13/13/19/



> Stephen Harper, effectively, began his term as Prime Minister with a surprise visit to Canadian troops in Afghanistan. That trip, more than a year ago, was widely regarded as politically courageous. He was, in pundit-and-panel jargon, taking ownership of the mission. Now near the wrap-up of an increasingly contentious sitting of Parliament he has gone to Afghanistan again. There have been many issues to confront the Prime Minister since he took office in February of last year. Afghanistan is the one, which by his own choice and actions, will define him.
> 
> The Afghanistan mission is for many Canadians perplexing, a difficult mix of the horrible and the ideal. The overriding goals of our presence in Afghanistan meet every humanitarian checklist. It is one of the world's poorest countries. It has been a playground for the clashes of the world's great powers since Kipling wrote his still marvellous Kim, and extolled the glories and romance of playing "the great game." It was the nursery of the Taliban and the nest of viperous al-Qaeda - the first being religious monomaniacs of a barbarous fundamentalism, the second a conspiratorial and murderous band whose toxic ambitions produced the great slaughter of 9/11, and the vicious aftershocks of Bali, Madrid and London.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (26 May 2007)

If he articulates support he is a partisan war-mongering Bushite trying to draw peoples' attention from real problems like fluorescent light bulbs and tax relief for Quebecers.  If he fails to articulate support he is poorly serving the needs of Afghans, Canadian troops, NATO and the UN, not to mention the great mass of Canadians who really want to be told how great they are as they sit on their couches waiting to find out who wins the Stanley Cup.

And lord help the PM that pre-empts the Stanley Cup.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 May 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> A good column by Rex Murphy:
> http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070526/COMURPHY26/Headlines/headdex/headdexComment/13/13/19/
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I know I’m repeating myself but I think, maybe I really just hope and maybe it is, yet again, the triumph of hope over experience, but, I think that Prime Minister Harper is doing *more*- rather a lot more - than making the Afghan was _his own_.  He *might* be reshaping Canadian foreign policy in a rather _stealthy_ manner.

It is important to recall that we have only ever had three foreign policies:

1.	_Anglophobia_ – under Mackenzie King;

2.	_Leading Middle Power_ – under St Laurent (with a _Helpful Fixer_ variation under Pearson – but this was far more words than deeds); and

3.	_Timorous Isolationism_ – under Trudeau and reprised by Chrétien (Mulroney did a variant of this – _Festung North America_ – in the ‘80s).

I think/hope Harper understands that Canadians are bored by foreign policy and worried that it may take resources away from their sacred cows: *”free”* health care and the _pogey_ – thus he declines to talk about it but he understands that we need, desperately need to reverse the _Timorous Isolationism_ because, as a long standing policy, it has done, is doing and will do serious harm to Canada’s political and economic interests around the world.

Afghanistan, I think, matters little to Harper except that it is a *tool* which he can use to reshape our foreign policy, our foreign service, our military and, without Canadians really noticing, our national attitude – our outlook and world view.  I think he thinks about the military in exactly the same way: it (you) are another _tool_.  He wants to be a good _craftsman_ so he will keep you sharp and well oiled.  He will use you as hard as necessary to get the job (reshaping policy and Canadians’ attitudes) done – sometimes he may use you harder than you might like, he may even misuse and abuse you – but it’s hard to imagine misuse and abuse which could be any worse than we endured between 1968 and 2005.  But you will go along with it happily enough because being _tools_ is (or ought to be) why you joined in the first place.

I think it’s working.  I think the world is paying more and more respectful attention to Canada – they started, in fairness, when Paul Martin took on the Kandahar task and made it look and sound like we were serious.  (I think the world understood that the initial ISAF commitment was a cheap, cynical ploy to avoid an unpopular mission in Iraq, but staying the course and committing combat troops to Kandahar changed perceptions.)

I also think Canadian attitudes are changing – s l o w l y.  Afghanistan is not a popular mission; it is, as Rex Murphy explains, too complex for Canadians to grasp in a series of 10 second sound-bites and it goes against the established _mythology_, the _narrative_ propagated by the Trudeau worshipping cult of the ignorant in the chattering classes, that we are a ‘nation of peacekeepers.’  Canadians are not, yet, ready or willing to abandon that mythology – they cannot be expected to change until we have better chattering classes.

In any event, if I’m right, you’re watching change happen without the normally accustomed fanfare – Harper will not hire Jennifer Welsh to rewrite the pap originating from the Lester B Pearson building.  There’s no need, he’s not gong to debate this in parliament or the media – he’s just going to make the changes; _consultation_ would not be helpful.

If he’s smart he’s going to _own_ a calmer, quieter Afghan mission – with a HUGE public relation effort aimed at emphasizing the development and diplomacy issues.  I think the DND public affairs juggernaut is actually out in front on this – I think some of the coverage of the death of Cpl. McCully reflects DND’s new _narrative_: “we’re _mentoring_ the Afghans, helping them to help themselves.  It’s the ‘next evolution’"  - as _Globe and Mail_ reporters Murray Campbell, Timothy Appleby and Graeme Smith put it in their report, parroting words fed to them by the DND PA people, I suspect.


----------



## GAP (26 May 2007)

> Timorous Isolationism



Might there not be a Ruxted article pointing out this fallacy?


----------



## observor 69 (26 May 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If he’s smart he’s going to _own_ a calmer, quieter Afghan mission – with a HUGE public relation effort aimed at emphasizing the development and diplomacy issues.  I think the DND public affairs juggernaut is actually out in front on this – I think some of the coverage of the death of Cpl. McCully reflects DND’s new _narrative_: “we’re _mentoring_ the Afghans, helping them to help themselves.  It’s the ‘next evolution’"  - as _Globe and Mail_ reporters Murray Campbell, Timothy Appleby and Graeme Smith put it in their report, parroting words fed to them by the DND PA people, I suspect.



Yes I hear you Mr.Campbell,   "but"  ,  what if the mission just drags on year ,  after year,   with it's annual toll of casualties.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 May 2007)

I think the mission*s* will drag on, year after year – rather as LGen Leslie, amongst others, has been predicting for a few years now.  I also think that O’Connor and Harper have come around to this way of thinking.  That’s why, I think, again, (of course I cannot know) they have both started to say, “well, yes, 2009 is as long as parliament has, currently, authorized the mission but if the job isn’t done we will go back to the well” – hoping to convince enough of the _Ignatieff_ Liberals that _enough_ progress is being made to justify staying longer.

I also think that Harper is negotiating or will soon negotiate with NATO to get relief in 2009 – so that we can send another combat force elsewhere, possibly Africa, maybe elsewhere in the Islamic Crescent to continue the _global war on barbarism_ - as part of *Canada as Leader* policy.

For the moment, I expect to see a ‘new narrative’ from DND stressing, as Rex Murphy did, that we cannot develop until the defending has been accomplished – we’ve done that part of the heavy lifting in Kandahar, almost, anyway, so we can expect to start seeing the fruits of our development labours when we open our morning papers or tune into the TV news.  That _offensive_ must be waged by the PRT, the mentoring teams and, especially, the DND Public Affairs branch.

Casualties are bearable if they are being taken in support of ‘development.’  The 'target' isn't just the Taliban; Harper and O'Connor must also fight deeply entrenched Canadian attitudes.


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 May 2007)

E.R. Campbell:  Gen. Hillier seems to be thinking along the lines you suggest (I used this quote before):
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/217613



> The Canadian military is undergoing a revolution in what it does and how it does it – designed to let the country take its deserved place on the world stage, Canada's top soldier says.
> 
> Canadian Forces will be deployed in large groups, under Canadian commanders, to give the country a more noticeable military presence during conflict so politicians can take a greater role in post-war discussions, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said in a speech in Toronto last night.
> 
> ...



I loved your three phases of Canadian foreign policy, esp. 

1. Anglophobia – under Mackenzie King

The most powerful bureaucrat in Ottawa in the 1930s, O.D. Skelton (Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs--King was the Minister, as well as PM) was also very anti-British.  He essentially saw the point of Canadian foreign policy as freeing us from the grasp of the English and asserting our independence.  And avoid war in Europe if at all possible (it wasn't but not for want of trying to get out of it).
http://www.international.gc.ca/department/skelton/hillmer-en.asp

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (26 May 2007)

I wonder if, by the end of the summer, Harper might not have tried to integrate The Arnold Effect, "Post Kyoto", 0.7% of GDP to Foreign Aid and Hillier's "Vimy Effect" into a coherent foreign policy.

One of the Conservative's big complaints about Kyoto was shipping dollars overseas to "needy"countries like China and Russia in return for carbon credits.  At the same time they have been supportive of the Pearsonian 0.7% of GDP (actually Pearson alluded to 0.7% of GNP which is calculated differently and IIRC is a smaller value than GDP.....but never mind for now).

Meanwhile Harper has got the UN head of the Kyoto protocol to come forward and say "Oh NOW I understand - you're not against Kyoto.  Just against crippling Canada's economy to achieve it.  Let us know your plan and we look forward to next year's donation."

Harper also has some additional heavyweight support in the form of China, India and Brazil as well as the US.  Europe appears willing to accept that they will be going their own gait.  All of which means that the US (post Bush) will be less isolated and along with it Canada.

Now if Harper were to work towards increasing foreign aid to 0.7% of GDP by a combination of Low Carbon energy projects in the Third World (the stated but convoluted goal of carbon credits) and "Vimy Effect" nation building then he might be able to defray a lot of the Left's animus.

And I note that the National Post has a big write up on Governor Arnie coming to Canada.

Some key quotes: 

"If you are against taking actions against greenhouse gases and carbon emissions your political base will melt away as sure as the polar ice caps.  You will become a political penguin on a smaller and smaller ice floe drifting out to sea.  Goodbye my little friend".    (Translation: The mob's heading this way.  If you don't stay with the mob it is you that is isolated.)

Interviewer (Linda Frum): "Your advisor (Terry Tamminen) seemed to suggest that Stephen Harper is an environmental girly-man,.."
Governor Arnold: "Terry does not speak on my behalf.........We are interested in working with Canada and trying to figure out how we can confront and fight global warming together.  Attacking each other, and saying negative things, is not going to solve anyone's problems."  (Translation:  Room for manoeuvre so we all look good here).



> (The Governor) blames a lack of progress in the (environmental) movement on misguided "guilt tactics."  He insists that instead, environmentalism needs to become "cool, cutting edge, and sexy."  Improved technology rather than scolding anti-materialism is the Schwarzenegger way.



"....Whether it's selling my movies, selling body building , or other businesses I've had, I'm always trying to figure out: How can you make this big?  And now it's the same thing with the environment. We just have to find the groove.  *Al Gore did it his way. He went as far as he can go.* I do it my way, which is different but complimentary."

If somebody wants to pursue the Green end of this discussion please take it back to The Global Warming Superthread http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32987.0.html

I merely bring these things up here as they relate to Harper's major foreign and domestic policy problems.  Kyoto, Afghanistan and Development are all hot buttons for the opposition.  He has some interesting cards to play this summer while the opposition is out of the limelight.

And I indulge in some wishful thinking.........


----------



## observor 69 (26 May 2007)

If this isn't dynamite I don't know what is !!  Call me stupid but is this not way ahead of anything Harper has said is "the New government" foreign or military policy. I mean yea it makes some kind of sense but boy I'll bet a bunch that to Joe average Canadian this is a real news flash.
This to me is the key paragraph :
"Canadian Forces will be deployed in large groups, under Canadian commanders, to give the country a more noticeable military presence during conflict so politicians can take a greater role in post-war discussions, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said in a speech in Toronto last night."

I have read that Hillier had easy access to the PMO and I can't see him saying this kind of a public statement unless he felt it was in line with where Harper was going.


http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/217613

Military faces 'revolution'
 TheStar.com - News - Military faces 'revolution'

Hillier cites new recruiting, training

May 25, 2007 
Kerry Gillespie
Queen's Park Bureau

The Canadian military is undergoing a revolution in what it does and how it does it – designed to let the country take its deserved place on the world stage, Canada's top soldier says. 

Canadian Forces will be deployed in large groups, under Canadian commanders, to give the country a more noticeable military presence during conflict so politicians can take a greater role in post-war discussions, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said in a speech in Toronto last night.

"We're trying to give Canada a seat at the table, an opportunity to influence a region, a country, an event in accordance with our interests and with our values because of our (military) contribution," Hillier told reporters after his speech at the annual Canadian Press dinner.

This is something Canada has not done since Vimy Ridge in World War I, he said.

The Canadian contribution in the decisive battle at Vimy Ridge is often cited as a reason the country, until then viewed as little more than a British colony, won the right to separately sign the Versailles peace treaty.

Hillier said that for decades the military has been trying to be the public service of Canada, and that too will change.

"We are the Canadian forces and our raison d'etre is to conduct operations and at times, on your behalf, actually apply disciplined managed violence," Hillier said in his speech.

The primary role of the military is to protect Canadians at home. 

And there's a renewed focus on that, he said.

The military is refining the special forces, and training and equipping them for possible counter-terrorist activities on Canadian soil, he added.

It is changing the way it recruits, trains and equips soldiers.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (27 May 2007)

Where has it come from?
I find myself asking this question again and again.
     Where has this expectation that national reconstruction can be done inside of a year, and produce a tiny little clone of Canada with its own little copy of our Charter, its own little CBC, its own little three-parties-pandering-to-the-center political system, and instant tradition of law and order, come from?  How long were we in Germany to rebuild and stabilize West Germany, a nation with a long tradition of democratic responsible government?  How long did the mission last in the former Yugoslavia?  How about Cyprus?  Has any of the UN missions in Africa ever produced a stable self=governing body whose institutions match the harsh criteria our reconstruction of Afghanistan is being asked to?  
     The UN was allowed to stumble from outright failure, to disaster, to limited but quantifiable success, with huge costs in life and treasure with no one noticing, or much caring (save those of us who had to strap on the blue and board the silly white vehicles), but when we act outside the UN umbrella our media and public are suddenly demanding that we do in a single year what the UN requires decades to even attempt, often to total failure.  Where has this expectation come from?  Not from a study of history, for there have never been historical instances of nation building in a country so devoid of existing resources and infrastructure, with so many and powerful vested interests in undermining public order.  The expectation has come from the media, whose collective ignorance of not only history, but the current events they are supposed to be reporting is as colossal as it is disgraceful.
     The next time that a reporter asks a Canadian policy maker or the CDS about a timetable for getting Canada out of Afghanistan, shall we reply that we will be out of Afghanistan with our mission objectives achieved to our satisfaction, long before the Canadian Media and its pet civilian think tanks pull their collective heads out of their rectums for a breath of fresh air and a quick reality check?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (27 May 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Hillier said that for decades the military has been trying to be the public service of Canada, and that too will change.
> 
> "We are the Canadian forces and our raison d'etre is to conduct operations and at times, on your behalf, actually apply disciplined managed violence," Hillier said in his speech.
> 
> ...



Man I love this guy! This has been our whole problem ever since Hellyer. We've been a social science testing ground! You can see it every policy from Second Language Training to prices charged for PMQs (not about breaks for soldiers but tagging prices to the local economy so as not to pee off the local landlords). We'd better hope this guy sticks around and survives the political battles long enough to set us back on our feet again. there are plenty of folks in this country especially on the political left who will see this as heresy of the worst kind...many of them belong to the Liberal party of Canada and will not enjoy hearing this kind of challenge. I think Harper and the Conservatives are on the right track but their lack of a majority and stall in the polls doesn't indicate that the rest of the country (read Ontario and Quebec) is ready to go the same route as them in many policies not just Defence and Foreign Affairs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 May 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Man I love this guy! This has been our whole problem ever since Hellyer. We've been a social science testing ground! You can see it every policy from Second Language Training to prices charged for PMQs (not about breaks for soldiers but tagging prices to the local economy so as not to pee off the local landlords). We'd better hope this guy sticks around and survives the political battles long enough to set us back on our feet again. there are plenty of folks in this country especially on the political left who will see this as heresy of the worst kind...many of them belong to the Liberal party of Canada and will not enjoy hearing this kind of challenge. I think Harper and the Conservatives are on the right track but their lack of a majority and stall in the polls doesn't indicate that the rest of the country (read Ontario and Quebec) is ready to go the same route as them in many policies not just Defence and Foreign Affairs.



With respect, IHS, Gen. Hillier is peripheral to the message.  The _message_ was crafted in both the PMO (Prime Minister's Office – the *political* heart of the government) and the PCO (Privy Council Office – the *policy* head of the government) and was approved in both places, too.  They are, broadly, Gen. Hillier's words but the ideas belong to Stephen Harper, Ian Brodie and Kevin Lynch.  Brodie and Lynch, unlike Rick Hillier, have real *power* in Ottawa – including the power to put Gen. Hillier out on the street on a moment's notice.

There are three good reasons why Hillier is the _messenger_:

1. He's newsworthy, in and of himself.  He and his _handlers_ have worked very, very hard t make him both accessible and quotable – it's party in Hillier's _nature_ but the communications skills and _tactics_ have also been _nurtured_.  The media follows him because he's usually good for a sound-bite;

2. He believes in the Harper/Brodie/Lynch message.  He's not just a mercenary _voice_.  These are his views.  Hillier is an honest man – Harper, Brodie and Lynch know that.  He is telling us what he thinks – it's just that he's _allowed_ to say what he thinks because his views are in accord with those of the government-of-the-day.  Those rule have always governed public comments by senior officials – those who speak out without the approval of the government-of-the-day are fired (Adm. John Anderson (CDS in 1993)) or resign (VAdm Chuck Thomas (VCDS to _Prince John_ de Chastelain)); and

3. He is totally deniable.  If whatever he says draws too much fire the government can deny that he is their _voice_.  That's a fiction, of course, but it is a fiction which all political parties – even the BQ – understand is necessary and desirable.

Let us give Gen. Hillier full marks for all the excellent things he has said and done – let us not believe, not for a moment, that he is out there telling the world about *his own* policies.


----------



## observor 69 (27 May 2007)

As per my comments above I consider this pretty powerful stuff (see the Star article link also).
And many thanks Mr.Campbell for your excellent comments, now I see where Harper et al are heading.
So somehow "the New Government" figured out, had to be with great input from Brodie and Lynch, that Canada needed to build up our sickly military into a competent medium sized force capable of :
"Canadian Forces will be deployed in large groups, under Canadian commanders, to give the country a more noticeable military presence during conflict so politicians can take a greater role in post-war discussions, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said in a speech in Toronto last night."

And that message had to be a given to Hillier by the two 'Eminence Gris'.
I guess my secondary message here is has the MSM figured all this out and when does the shouting start from the MSM and politicans. 

Oh and I have to add this quote from Mr.Layton:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070526.wlayton0526/BNStory/Front

Layton says new approach needed in Afghanistan
SEAN PATRICK SULLIVAN 

Canadian Press

May 26, 2007 at 6:04 PM EDT

Toronto — Following the death of yet another Canadian soldier in Afghanistan, NDP Leader Jack Layton says he hopes Canadians will ask the government to take a different approach to combat in the war-torn country.

Corporal Matthew McCully, 25, was killed by a roadside bomb on Friday in the Zhari district of Kandahar province.

In an interview with The Canadian Press in Toronto, Mr. Layton said his heart goes out to the family and friends of the fallen soldier, but stressed the need for a continued debate about the mission in Afghanistan.

”Our soldiers will risk their lives, according to what we request them to do. We saw yesterday the profound reality of that commitment,” he said.

Mr. Layton said his party is concerned about what he calls an “aggressive” counter-insurgency campaign being waged by Canadian forces.

Cpl. McCully was participating in Operation Hoover, a major anti-Taliban offensive, alongside Afghan and Portuguese troops when he stepped on an anti-tank mine that instantly killed him.

On Saturday, eight members of Cpl. McCully's squadron carried his flag-draped coffin into a Hercules aircraft that would take him home to Ontario.

It was the first Canadian death since mid-April, when eight soldiers were killed by a massive roadside bomb.

Mr. Layton said it is “distressing” that the Prime Minister Stephen Harper has opened the door to a prolonged mission in Afghanistan, where 55 Canadian soldiers have been killed since 2002.

In a surprise visit to Afghanistan last week, Mr. Harper told troops it would be wrong to guarantee a pull-out date in advance.

“You know that your work is not complete,” Mr. Harper told the assembled troops. “You know that we can't just put down our weapons and hope for peace.”

The NDP has called for an immediate withdrawal, while the Liberals want Canada to pull its troops when the current mission expires in 2009.

Citing the rising costs – both human and financial – Mr. Layton said multibillion-dollar purchases of tanks and helicopters could have been avoided if the military was not engaged in a “search and destroy mission.”

”I think many Canadians are asking themselves whether Mr. Harper hasn't lost track of the priorities of Canadians,” said Mr. Layton.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 May 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> ”I think many Canadians are asking themselves whether Mr. Harper hasn't lost track of the priorities of Canadians,” said Mr. Layton.



My thesis remains that Prime Minister Harper has not _"lost track of the priorities of Canadians"_, he understands them; he is trying to change them.

He understands that a _debate_ would be a pointless exercise because Canadians have a _mythology_ about _peace_ etc which is impervious to reason.  Better, I think he thinks  to (very quietly) present Canadians with a _fait accompli_: discovering that our voice does mean something, for the first time in nearly 40 years; a newfound _pride_ in Canada's leadership role in the _big leagues_ of international problems; and an appreciation of the fact that leadership has a price but that tough, disciplined professional soldiers are willing to pay that price and that young Canadians are eager to join that band.

There is no point in debating with Layton or the Parliamentary Press Gallery or the _commentariat_ or any others in the 'chattering classes.'  Gen. Hillier has publicized the government's plan - no one can accuse them of keeping it a big secret.  Now it is time to talk less and act more.


----------



## observor 69 (27 May 2007)

OK now I finally see the light ! It's a package deal. Foreign policy, defence policy, Canada's place on the international stage;  boy that definitely didn't come from "The New Government" caucus. 

And where does poor Peter McKay fit in here!  

Sounds like any young person joining this hoped for new military has a bright career.


----------



## KevinB (27 May 2007)

I want to know what a "non" agressive COIN operation would do?

Besides pushing Burkha's back on to women in a lot of areas, and criplling both the Afghan gov't and their fledgling security services


----------



## GAP (27 May 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I want to know what a "non" agressive COIN operation would do?
> 
> Besides pushing Burkha's back on to women in a lot of areas, and criplling both the Afghan gov't and their fledgling security services



That might be a whole article in of itself....interesting take......maybe it's about time we painted a picture of Jacko's world...


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 May 2007)

Sen. Colin Kenny makes some good points but glosses political reality too readily and is rather overly nasty to the PM.  Although he is a Liberal he usually tries to make his case in a less partisan fashion.  Pity he's taking this approach (Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act).



> Stephen Harper is a toy soldier
> Our gung-ho PM talks a good game on the military, but he is quietly selling out its future
> http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=3727c5ca-eff8-4c52-88b2-2a4cffdc5d52
> 
> ...



Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 May 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> OK now I finally see the light ! It's a package deal. Foreign policy, defence policy, Canada's place on the international stage;  boy that definitely didn't come from "The New Government" caucus.
> ...



Bingo!  Stephen Harper = Louis St. Laurent - in a whole lot of ways, I think.

Although, like St. Laurent, a _natural_, classcal liberal (read _conservative_ if you are an ill-educated media type), Harper is a big spender because he understands that Canadians are unwilling to deny themselves much of anything available to their richer, more entrepreneurial, much more _liberal_ and harder working American cousins.  (The real social programme revolution took place in 1951/52 (when St. Laurent was PM) when the Constitution was amended to allow the federal government to pass the _Old Age Security Act_.  That was, largely, in response to social initiatives in the USA which began in the mid '30s.  The rest, all the Trudeau era BS, was just _adornments_.)


----------



## Flip (27 May 2007)

> maybe it's about time we painted a picture of Jacko's world...



Exactly! demonstrate (somehow) what new age appeasement actually leads to.

What happens next? - you can't sell a prediction.
The left have predicted military failure from day one since 9-11.
(Perhaps because the use of the military is a failure.)

I for one, am sick of hearing what some rageing grannies would do for
a foreign policy.  

I think "peacekeeping" was something that evolved itself from
"you don't want to tangle with Canada too"
to 
"let's hold hands and hope for peace"

Peacekeeping was a good thing to do, but the left changed the public perception
of what it meant, from legitimate military deployment to uniformed beurocracy.
In short the word "peacekeeping" has changed to something quite absurd.

The words good and evil have now been dappled in shades of grey.
When GW Bush uses the term "evildoers" it resonates in the US.
Here, we get our knickers in a twist. How dare we call the Taliban evil?
AQ is simply a different form of cultural expression.

Sorry for the rant - I'm sick of it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 May 2007)

> What happens next? - you can't sell a prediction.



I beg to differ- ever hear of Global Warming?

Good luck getting a large group of people to hear something they don't want to hear.


----------



## Flip (27 May 2007)

> I beg to differ- ever hear of Global Warming?



I stand corrected sir!  ;D

Maybe, The informed can't sell a prediction, will fly?


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 May 2007)

From Sen. Kenny:



> Well, at least those Liberal governments were honest - they simply didn't attach that big a priority to the military. *This government, on the other hand, is hypocritical. It pretends to be strengthening our defences, but what it is really doing is buying just enough equipment to fill the most alarming holes and to get Canada through its commitment in Afghanistan* [emphasis added].
> 
> Meanwhile, that Defence Capabilities Plan that this government insisted the Department of Defence come up with to outline Canada's military needs for the next quarter-century seems to have gone into hiding. It was supposed to be forthcoming last spring, then last fall, but if it exists, it's being hidden away somewhere.
> 
> Why? Because if an honest plan were brought forward, it would demonstrate clearly that the government is going to have to spend many billions more on defence than its plans call for now. Otherwise the Canadian Forces are going to deteriorate once again. There will be huge holes in the navy, the air force, and in the army as well.



Bingo, again.

Remember the howls of outrage from the press when, just a few months ago, the government leaked a very preliminary draft of *a* potential defence policy which called for the defence budget to increase to $37 Billion by 2025?  I commented, here that the _proposed_ (test fired?) increase amounted to disarmament by stealth.  I also suggested that Sen. Kenny's recommendation ($35 Billion by 2012) is both politically and administratively silly.

What makes sense?

Steady, large,*real* (after _defence related_ inflation) increases, beginning next year, of  5% then 7.5% then 10% and, briefly, even at 12.5% and so on until, by 2025 we are spending something in the range of $40-45 Billion per year, year after year - which should be 2 to 2.25% of a GDP by then approaching $2 Trillion.  That means, if – as we *must* – we _front load_ a lot of the big expenditures, we might get to somewhere in the $25-30 Billion range by 2015 – not Sen. Kenny's $35 Billion.

In fairness: the numbers, the numbers whichCanada *must* spend are huge and Canadians are not going to like them - not at all.  Kudos to Sen. Kenny for sounding the alarm.


----------



## McG (28 May 2007)

> New report urges overhaul of Afghan mission
> Updated Mon. May. 28 2007 8:35 AM ET
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070528/senlis_report_070528/20070528?hub=Canada

It seem's to me that the Senlis Council's perscription is to keep doing what we are doing with the military, but to also do more of all the non-military stuff.


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 May 2007)

More on the Senlis Council (some not what you might think)--a post at _The Torch_ (I attended their "event" in Ottawa this morning):

The Senlis Council: "Canada in Afghanistan"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/05/senlis-council-canada-in-afghanistan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 May 2007)

Senlis update:  Afstan: Senlis Council, Canada and the media
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/05/afstan-senlis-council-canada-and-media.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 May 2007)

CIDA, Afstan and the Senlis Council
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/05/cida-afstan-and-senlis-council.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Jun 2007)

A post at _The Torch_:

Liberals do support the troops
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/liberals-do-support-troops.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jun 2007)

Glad to see that Denis Coderre says that we've won the war.  When's the victory parade?


----------



## McG (6 Jun 2007)

> Canadian Forces “caught by surprise” in Afghan war
> CanWest News Service
> Published: Wednesday, June 06, 2007
> 
> ...


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=6843ab79-e1ea-488c-85df-0413f4d54ab1&k=45178


----------



## Reccesoldier (6 Jun 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> When's the victory parade?



And will we be directly behind Hezbola in the OOM?


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Jun 2007)

A post at _The Torch_:

 Afstan: Two very different military situations
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/afstan-two-very-different-military.html



> The British seem to be trying to achieve this year what the CF appear to have achieved last year...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (6 Jun 2007)

Nothing breeds success, like success...


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Jun 2007)

About what one would expect from _The Grauniad_:

The west has to accept that there is no military solution

The honest way forward in Afghanistan is to understand the south is lost and refocus efforts on Kabul and the north 
_The Guardian_, June 8, by Jonathan Steele in Kabul
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2098059,00.html


> ...
> The deaths by ground fire and US air strikes have become so frequent that last month the upper house of Afghanistan's parliament did something it has never done before. It called on the Nato-led forces to cease taking offensive action against the Taliban and asked the Afghan government to talk to the insurgents, provided the Taliban accept the country's new constitution. It also asked for a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops. The upper house is not normally a radical body. More than half its members were appointed by Bush's friend, President Hamid Karzai. Its speaker is a moderate former mujahideen leader who was driven from power by the Taliban a decade ago. That men with this background should now be expressing doubts over Nato's tactics and even over its presence in Afghanistan sends a powerful signal...
> 
> In the Pashtun south, the Taliban's homeland, the west did little. Instead of pumping in aid while the defeated Taliban were still demoralised, the Taliban were given three years to recover. Now that Isaf has finally gone into the south, the complaint is that it is too aggressive. Isaf troops demolish houses, empty out villages, displace tens of thousands of people, and use indiscriminate firepower that kills innocent civilians. Isaf's task is complicated by the presence of over 10,000 US troops who are not under Nato command but operate in the same zones, killing more Afghans than Isaf, and giving all foreign forces a bad name since no one can understand the difference.
> ...



Indeed no military solution by ISAF alone.  It will in the end be up to the Afghan army and police.  But let's fight enough to give them time to try and basically do it themselves.  With some air support, if requested. 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Jun 2007)

Afstan is all about winning hearts and minds.  Ours. Two good summaries of the situation (one in the _Globe and Mail_, with only a couple of cheap shots) make a similar key point:

1) _Globe and Mail_:

As Kandahar rebuilds, the clock is ticking
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070611.wafghan11/BNStory/National/



> The goal of the Taliban is much simpler. They don't have to defeat the ISAF forces. They simply have to inflict enough casualties so that political support for the mission among ISAF nations erodes. The Taliban think in terms of decades. The coalition countries think in terms of months. And the clock is ticking.
> 
> Right now, it's a race - between the coalition's ability to build the capacity for Afghanistan to stand on its own two feet and the ability of the Taliban to influence Canadian public and political opinion with attacks designed to inflict casualties among Canadians. The finish line is 2009...



2) _Ottawa Citizen_:
State of a nation
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=9009b503-9241-49fe-b3ed-1fe57834766d



> The Taliban know that western public opinion reacts severely to casualties, so the act of killing becomes more important than taking ground in the classic military manner. They are aware of the massive media coverage that is generated in Canada by every fatal casualty, and the subsequent downturn in public support for the mission...
> 
> ...Success will not come overnight. It will take patience, understanding, and continued dedication to the mission, but there is much to build on.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (11 Jun 2007)

They have time on their side...they just have to wait for us to get tired (or bankrupt) of spending billions of  dollars and Canadian or other ISAF lives on a mission that many Canadians are having difficulty supporting. Hopefully we can change conditions of life sufficiently for ordinary folks so that they glimpse what they can have without the Taliban and the Drug Lords...a big task.


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Jun 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO: Then there's this:

Big majority wants Afghan mission to end on schedule in 2009: poll
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=84a40006-13e3-4853-9793-f11055ffc742&k=91670



> OTTAWA (CP) - The vast majority of Canadians want this country's military mission in Afghanistan to end as scheduled in 2009, according to a new poll.
> 
> The survey by Decima Research, released Monday to The Canadian Press, found that two-thirds of respondents want Canadian troops to come home when the current mandate from Parliament expires in February 2009.
> 
> ...



Late this morning the Dutch and Canadian PMs met the press after their meeting and both spoke about Afstan, the Dutch PM rather more fully than ours.  The media then had two questions alternately from Dutch and Canadian reporters.  Both the Dutch questions were about Afstan; both the Canadian were about the political fallout surrounding the "Atlantic Accord".

This is not I fear, as Lucien Bouchard famously said, a real country.  It is a political, media, and grievance interest group entertainment show.

Hurl.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Jun 2007)

Two posts at _The Torch_:

Afstan tipping point: _Québec_?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/afstan-tipping-point-qubec.html

Yet another agenda-driven _Globe and Mail_ headline
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/yet-another-agenda-driven-globe-and.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (14 Jun 2007)

*Report paints grim picture of Afghanistan*
Updated Thu. Jun. 14 2007 9:13 AM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

The situation in Afghanistan last fall was steadily deteriorating, with deep fractures developing in the south and west and the position of President Hamid Karzai shakier than ever before, according to a report prepared for top levels of the Canadian government. 

The document that analyzed the situation in Afghanistan was prepared by the International Assessment Staff of the Privy Council Office.

The document, with large portions blacked out, was obtained by The Globe and Mail through an Access to Information request. 

The report was apparently put together last November after Canadian NATO troops stationed in Kandahar went through several particularly violent months. 

It states that the effectiveness of Taliban suicide attacks and roadside bombs in southern Afghanistan had brought the insurgents increased financial support and boosted "recruitment, training, equipping and morale improvements" of the Taliban. Pakistan, the Gulf states and "Jihad-minded groups and individuals" then began lending new support to the then-faltering insurgency.

However, the otherwise chilling report also said that the Taliban lacks widespread support in regions other than the south, where the insurgency is strongest.

The grim reality of the situation is that "two Afghanistans" have effectively been created, with the north and west making measurable progress while little advancement is taking place in the south and the west, The Globe reports.

The government, and Karzai himself, face questions of legitimacy due to constant challenges to the nation's leadership that continually erode the leadership, the report states.

The report referred to "mixed success" in terms of efforts to reform the Afghan justice system and described "a culture of immunity among major warlords, criminals, drug lords and political figures."

The report also says Afghanistan's security forces are "weak and under-developed."
More on link


----------



## Blue Max (15 Jun 2007)

We need to have patience, for our efforts to turn around this backward nation, to succeed. 
Unfortunately this goes against the present culture of fuzzy PC, right now, immediately gratify me. :

Keep up the good work,
cheers.

BM


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 Jun 2007)

Imagine if the Second World War had happened in this day and age rather than 65 years ago or so. The present day Liberals would have pulled the Canadians out of England after the Dieppe Raid citing that we were spending too much money and wasting too mnay Canadian lives....."why do we want to go into Europe and meddle in those peoples lives anyway?" after we leave the Nazis and their ilk will be back...let's take an opinion poll and see how many people really support this foreign war...blah blah blah


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 Jun 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> *Report paints grim picture of Afghanistan*
> Updated Thu. Jun. 14 2007 9:13 AM ET CTV.ca News Staff
> Article Link
> 
> ...


 I can almost here them now...  "this should have been over months ago! How long does democratization take anyway?  Sheesh!" Idiots.


----------



## observor 69 (15 Jun 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Imagine if the Second World War had happened in this day and age rather than 65 years ago or so. The present day Liberals would have pulled the Canadians out of England after the Dieppe Raid citing that we were spending too much money and wasting too mnay Canadian lives....."why do we want to go into Europe and meddle in those peoples lives anyway?" after we leave the Nazis and their ilk will be back...let's take an opinion poll and see how many people really support this foreign war...blah blah blah



Bit of a  stretch using the old historical "what if" to compare today to the factors bearing on Canada in 1939.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (15 Jun 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Bit of a  stretch using the old historical "what if" to compare today to the factors bearing on Canada in 1939.



I don't think it was a comparison between the conflicts.  I think IN HOC was saying that back then people had their priorities straight and had spiritual and personal fortitude to do what needed to be done.  When was the last time you heard someone say "For God, Queen and Country"?  These days it's just "For me, whatever is convenient and whatever seems like a good idea at the time".  We are a nation of sheeple that act like over-entitled navel gazers.  Yet we still like to fancy ourselves morally superior to the United States.  
I don't get it.  Afghanistan should be a huge point of pride for all of Canada, but because a few political opportunists manipulated it into something negative we have discussions like this.  I can't even imagine how many of our veterans are disgusted with the state of things.


----------



## stealthylizard (16 Jun 2007)

I think this war has done great things for recruitment numbers, or has it been something else contributing the increased interest in the Canadian Forces?  I might be completely wrong of course.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jun 2007)

I would say that the only way to "win" is to stay for a generation.

Afghanistan's greatest shortage is skilled and educated people. Individuals are smart, brave etc. but really only able to work at an individual or "small unit" level. What we need are more professionals, managers, technical specialists, officers and NCO's who can work at higher levels. Once we get a critical mass of these people (and a larger mass of literate people to sustain the process) then Afghanistan will be self sustaining. This won't happen between now and 2009, 2011 and probably only start ramping up towards critical mass by 2017.

Of course the question is "how do we get these people", and the answer is to do what we are doing (concentrate on security so the Taliban have limited ability to burn schools and attack educated people), and maybe throw in some refinements (educational scholarships to Canadian schools, colleges and universities, perhaps?).

Of course we also need a critical mass of Canadians to know and understand this truth as well........


----------



## observor 69 (16 Jun 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I don't think it was a comparison between the conflicts.  I think IN HOC was saying that back then people had their priorities straight and had spiritual and personal fortitude to do what needed to be done.  When was the last time you heard someone say "For God, Queen and Country"?  These days it's just "For me, whatever is convenient and whatever seems like a good idea at the time".  We are a nation of sheeple that act like over-entitled navel gazers.  Yet we still like to fancy ourselves morally superior to the United States.
> I don't get it.  Afghanistan should be a huge point of pride for all of Canada, but because a few political opportunists manipulated it into something negative we have discussions like this.  I can't even imagine how many of our veterans are disgusted with the state of things.



Just a couple of points.
Political opportunists exist on both sides of the aisle.
Harper and his cabinet have done an abysmal job of selling this mission.
The present generation of Canadians have no experience with war. Couple that with the poor job of explaning why we are there and you get  the present negative public support for the mission.


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 Jun 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Just a couple of points.
> Political opportunists exist on both sides of the aisle.
> Harper and his cabinet have done an abysmal job of selling this mission.
> The present generation of Canadians have no experience with war. Couple that with the poor job of explaning why we are there and you get  the present negative public support for the mission.


 
Agreed, what we need is some good old-fashioned 1950's style propaganda.  Flood the airwaves with it, make g-d vignettes of pre and post Taliban Afghanistan.  Posters, TV Documentaries with a directed propagandist approach.

It's not the war in Afghanistan we are loosing it's the more important war at home.  

I for one don't want to be sitting in my kitchen in 10 years, after a new government has pulled pole before the job was done watching CBC and hearing some left wing nutbar complaining about Afghan tyranny, human rights abuses, rampant poverty, state sponsored terrorism, womens rights violations etc, etc, etc. and bemoaning the fact that "the western world" is/has/will ignore Afghanistan because it has no oil/no strategic importance/ is a lost cause...

The vicious circle of the left...  First the story is that we should pull out because we are killing people, then when we do they cry that we should have stayed because people are being killed by whatever tyrant we "abandoned" them to.  :


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (16 Jun 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I don't think it was a comparison between the conflicts.  I think IN HOC was saying that back then people had their priorities straight and had spiritual and personal fortitude to do what needed to be done.  When was the last time you heard someone say "For God, Queen and Country"?  These days it's just "For me, whatever is convenient and whatever seems like a good idea at the time".  We are a nation of sheeple that act like over-entitled navel gazers.  Yet we still like to fancy ourselves morally superior to the United States.
> I don't get it.  Afghanistan should be a huge point of pride for all of Canada, but because a few political opportunists manipulated it into something negative we have discussions like this.  I can't even imagine how many of our veterans are disgusted with the state of things.



thanks ZC you captured the spirit of my point.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (16 Jun 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Just a couple of points.
> Political opportunists exist on both sides of the aisle.
> Harper and his cabinet have done an abysmal job of selling this mission.
> The present generation of Canadians have no experience with war. Couple that with the poor job of explaning why we are there and you get  the present negative public support for the mission.



I guess.  But it goes back to the original point.  Doing the right thing shouldn't need a sustained media campaign.  There was a time when helping the down trodden was a good enough reason.  
And when the media has been so biased against Mr. Harper's efforts, who is to say that an effort isn't being made to get it out there.  The information is abundantly available.  Every single person I talk to supports the mission.  No small thing considering what a left wing enclave we have here in Windsor.  
Every time one of these polls comes up, we all say the same thing:  the stats are skewed and cannot be trusted unless the actual questions and interview pool is revealed.  The media would know this as well, but they still choose to pluck out-of-context factoids and then create big splash headlines.  It's blatant partisanship.  Which is fine, if some bunch of clowns want to be the forever nay sayers.  But I have yet to hear a viable alternative plan (such a common theme of the left) and some good reason to abandon the people of Afghanistan.  

IN HOC, any time.   ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jun 2007)

Here, reproduced from today’s globe and mail.com ‘web exclusive comment' section, under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is an interesting piece by two US researchers:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070617.wcomment0618/BNStory/International/home


> * Web-exclusive comment*
> There's grounds for hope in Afghanistan
> 
> CRAIG CHARNEY AND ISOBEL COLEMAN
> ...



I think the last three paragraphs are key.

Ruxted dealt with the part of the The Afghanistan Compact which set a timetable the Afghans must meet while leaving ISAF members and the UN free of any such burdens.  As Charney and Coleman point out, the Afghans are making a Herculean effort to meet their commitments – but it’s an uphill *battle* against ruthless and determined enemies.

We are not going to turn Afghanistan into a liberal democracy – not within the lifetime of mostArmy.ca members, anyway.  Afghanistan is a weak, backward, _conservative_ society – best suited to coexisting with its neighbours in the 18th century.  Democracy, especially _liberal_ democracy does not propagate easily.  The ‘soil’ needs to be carefully prepared before the seeds of a liberal democracy will take root.  Where, beyond the _Anglosphere_ and North-West Europe, democracy has spread it is, generally, *illiberal* democracy.  (There is a _third way_ – what I describe as _conservative_ democracy which has developed in East Asia (most notably in Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan) – it might also be described as _Confucian_ democracy because it places the values of the society (not any and all societies) above the values and *natutal rights* of the individual.)  Afghanistan will not become a conservative democracy any time soon, either – like almost all societies stretching from Morocco across North Africa, through the Middle East and into West and Central Asia it is not, in the least, _Confucian_ – its _conservatism_ is grounded in pre-Islamic, medieval tribal cultures.  It is culture, not religion, which condemns most Muslims to lives of ignorance, violence and despair.

The Afghan people have, indeed, set an example for us: they are persevering; they are sacrificing; they have held out their hands – *begging* for our help.  Stephane Dion and Jack Layton and their _fellow travellers_ want Canada to turn its back – to make a mockery of Pink Lloyd Axworthy’s quest to enshrine ‘Responsibility to Protect’ because *responsibility* implies effort, perhaps a diversion of a tiny percentage of the GDP away from ‘free’ healthcare  and the _pogey_ and towards those less fortunate than ourselves.  I think Dion and Layton have the active support of the majority of our fellow citizens.  I believe we, Canadians, are a mean- spirited, niggardly and timorous people - best suited to hewing wood and hauling water for the USA.  The Afghans have set an example we will find too hard to follow.


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Jun 2007)

E.R. Campbell: +10.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jun 2007)

Pretty tough Edward.  Add a few pluses from here.


----------



## Flip (18 Jun 2007)

Thanks Edward!



> For our part, even as we must be realistic in our aims and humble about our role in Afghanistan, we should show no less commitment to its future than the country's own women and men have. When an American TV producer recently visited a girls' school the Taliban had burned down three times, he found their mothers and fathers rebuilding the school for a fourth time. There's a lesson for us.



Excellent conclusion to an excellent article.



> It is culture, not religion, which condemns most Muslims to lives of ignorance, violence and despair.



+ 10 here - exactly right!

The bronze age culture is what leads to all of this conflict.
I've always thought Al Qaeda and the Taliban were a departure from Islam.
They need to shown as such.

Conversely, hearing "Give Me That Old Time Religion" in my own 
church, makes my skin crawl.

If everyone would please refer to their calendar and find today's YEAR
we might get to the same page and sing a similar tune.  ;D


----------



## Yrys (19 Jun 2007)

Canada should debate extending Afghan mission

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070618/cda_afghanistan_070619/20070618?hub=SEAfghanistan



> OTTAWA -- The House of Commons defence committee says the conflict in Afghanistan will likely go on well past 2009
> and Parliament should hold a debate halfway through next year to decide whether to extend Canada's mission in the war-torn country.
> The all-party committee's long-awaited reported was tabled on Monday. "If we leave, someone else will have to carry the load,"
> it said. A recent poll found a majority of Canadians wanted to see the army's combat mission end on schedule in February 2009.
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Jun 2007)

Here's how the _Globe_ leads its story on the committee's report:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070619.wafghancomm19/BNStory/Front

Afghan mission tarnished by detainee abuse, committee reports



> Canada's effort in Afghanistan has been marred by the controversy involving the handover of Afghan detainees and deaths of civilians, the House of Commons defence committee says in a long-awaited report.
> 
> The committee, which issued the report Monday, also called for a debate to take place one year from now to decide whether Ottawa should extend the mission that has already cost the lives of 58 Canadians. The report also says that the army's role is not well understood by the general voting public.
> 
> ...



Compare with the _Ottawa Citizen's_ lead:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=dd37b4dc-e900-4a8a-bd0d-315092ece9fc

Hold debate to extend Afghan mission beyond 2009: MPs panel
Canadians need 'up-to-date understanding' of the commitment



> Parliament should immediately debate whether the Canadian Forces commitment to Afghanistan should be extended beyond February 2009, says a Commons defence committee study released yesterday.
> 
> The all-party committee also said more needs to be done to ensure aid and reconstruction dollars are delivered in a more timely manner to Afghans, especially after some particularly heavy fighting last year.
> 
> ...



Did the reporters read the same thing or does the _Globe_ have, perhaps, an agenda?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jun 2007)

I notice that our ‘friends’ at the Rideau Institute’s ceasefire.ca (Steve Staples, _Prop._) have an on-line  ‘write-in’ campaign to demand the resignations of O’Connor and Hillier because of the Afghan detainee issue.

I’m not smart enough to organize anything quite so slick but it occurs to me that those of us who agree with (some? most of?) Ruxted’s commentaries can follow suit.

We could write to the PM, the MND, the Foreign Minister and our own, individual constituency MP (no matter which party) and say something like:



> Nearly two years ago a rather loose group of people with considerable knowledge and experience in military matters and an abiding interest in national security, defence and foreign policy matters formed an on-line commentary group known as The Ruxted Group.  Its commentaries can be found at: http://ruxted.ca/
> 
> Ruxted aims, primarily, to correct incorrect information or disinformation in the media and to propose changes to Canadian policies.
> 
> I endorse Ruxted’s  main thrust – for a foreign policy which asserts a leadership role for Canada and for the efficient and effective armed forces necessary to give weight to our words,  and I encourage you to take a while to read and consider their ideas.  Perhaps you can endorse some of them too



You could send something like that to your local MP, whose E-mail address you can find here (click on the name hyperlink and then on ‘Contact Information’) and to:

Prime Minister Harper at Harper.S@parl.gc.ca

Defence Minister O’Connor at: OConnor.G@parl.gc.ca

Foreign Minister MacKay at: Mackay.P@parl.gc.ca

Liberal Leader Dion at: Dion.S@parl.gc.ca

NDP Leader Layton at: Layton.J@parl.gc.ca


----------



## McG (20 Jun 2007)

Countering Afghanistan’s Insurgency: No Quick Fixes 
November 2006 report


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (20 Jun 2007)

I recall my history.  I recall the drive of the Canadian people to "End the war by Christmas" and "Bring the boys home" from both world wars.  The cries were a little softer during Korea, because too many veterans of the Second World War remembered the price of leaving a job half done.  The Canadian people at the time accepted the price in blood and treasure to redeem our given word, to fight for the principles upon which our country was built, and to keep faith with our honoured allies.
     I do not recall a single instance where the people of Canada expected the war to be won, and a new regime put in place in a totally rebuilt infrastructure in the timeframe that we seem to be given for Afghanistan.  The public does not want Rome built in a day, they want Carthage rebuilt, repopulated, irrigated, cultivated, made literate, and taught the ways of free market capitalism, responsible democracy, and separation of church and state.  We are also supposed to teach the tribes that have been merrily warring with each other since Alexander the Great first pried them off a goat, to put aside the sword (or AK and IED), and embrace peaceful coexistence. Don't worry, you have until 2009.


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Jun 2007)

Yes, Virginia, you may believe in miracles.   The _Toronto Star_ supports the troops...and the mission!

Yesterday it reprinted a positive editorial from the _Winnipeg Free Press_:

Aid won't work without arms
http://www.thestar.com/article/227225

Today it prints its own view; Layton and the Liberals (and Mayor Miller) must be in shock. Good on the, gasp, _Star_!

Giving Afghans a chance
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/227712



> ...
> Canada has provided 2,500 troops and a $1.2 billion aid package to help the Afghan people emerge from decades of foreign occupation, civil war and, in recent years, Taliban rule. Every extra day that President Hamid Karzai's democratically elected government is given to affirm its authority is a day of hope for the Afghan people.
> 
> Canadian troops are striving to buy Afghan democrats time by preventing extremists, who want to topple the government and turn Afghanistan back into a launch pad for terror attacks, from regrouping.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Jun 2007)

Amazing isn't it? I posted the first one this morning in the "peacenik" thread hoping our friends there would read it.


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Jun 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse: Just did the same for today's editorial--thanks for the idea. 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Jun 2007)

Barbara Yaffe makes some good points in this column:

It isn't up to the soldiers to sell the mission in Afghanistan
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=a054d0ef-e9c7-4010-84c6-f21b2a4a960a



> It was inevitable that when troops from Quebec began deploying to Afghanistan, the mission would become more controversial for Ottawa.
> 
> Quebecers consistently have shown less enthusiasm for military engagement than other Canadians. In a plebiscite on conscription during the Second World War, 73 per cent of Quebecers voted against...
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Jun 2007)

Ruxted has been saying that for quite a while now......
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/51-If-You-Really-Support-The-Troops.html

_Quote,
Finally: Stop using the troops as political props, photo ops and whipping boys. Most Canadians, even those who disagree with why we are in Afghanistan and how we are conducting operations there, have nothing but good will, the best of will for the people in our armed forces. Most Canadians are quite able to “support the troops” even as they oppose the government of the day. It is politicians who seem unable to grasp the simple fact that the “troops” serve all Canadians, equally, because they – above all others – represent all Canadians, equally. The men and women in the Canadian Forces signed on to be used, as tools, to advance the policies of the elected Government of Canada; they did not sign on to be tools in election campaigns or props in political theatrics. The Ruxted Group deplores the increase in the partisan use and abuse of our military by politicians of all stripes.

Canadians do “support the troops” and the troops support Canada. It is time for politicians to put our money where their (too busy) mouths are and practice what they preach._


----------



## McG (22 Jun 2007)

> NATO chief warns Canadians to look beyond 2009 timetable for Afghanistan
> Mike Blanchfield and Hubert Bauch, CanWest News Service
> Published: Friday, June 22, 2007
> 
> ...


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=ec387754-3370-47a1-94f9-8f80308f2506



> PM: No Afghanistan extension without consensus
> Updated Fri. Jun. 22 2007 2:27 PM ET
> 
> OTTAWA -- Not only does Prime Minister Stephen Harper want to see parliamentarians agree on the country's future role in Afghanistan, he wants all Canadians to be on-side.
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070622/afghanistan_harper_070622/20070622?hub=Canada


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Jun 2007)

As the prime minister goes wobbly (I fear the current mission cannot be extended if the Conservatives do not win a majority by Spring 2008), some truths about things and a bit of foolishness.

1) The _Globe's_ Margaret Wente notes some good sense from Rory Stewart: 
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070623/COWENT23/Columnists/columnists/columnistsNational/3/3/10/


> ...
> So what's the truth about Afghanistan? Are our soldiers really making it a better place? Is it worth the sacrifice so that little girls can go to school? Or are we simply doing the bidding of the neo-imperialist Americans? Why can't we bring the soldiers home and just build schools?
> 
> If you want a simple answer, don't ask me. If you want a truthful one, listen to Rory Stewart.
> ...



2) But Mr Stewart is not all good sense--from a piece by Don Martin of the _Calgary Herald_:
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=a1c51b96-6c14-4161-bd46-1fb68a0071b1


> ...
> Take the view of Rory Stewart, the acclaimed author who published a bestselling story of his walk across a dangerously lawless Afghanistan in 2002, two months after the Taliban were driven from power.
> 
> Now heading a foundation in Kabul, he says *Canada must abandon its doomed military folly in Kandahar and regroup in the north, where it has a reasonable chance of success* [emphasis added--and in effect partition the country? And what about all the Pathans further west and north?].
> ...



Especially not if we leave too soon.  And how long will Canadians (and others) stomach taking casualties, after abandoning the south, when the Taliban start killing significant numbers of our troops elsewhere?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## BootStrap (23 Jun 2007)

I'll Throw my two cents in:

First of all I believe in the Afghan mission, I believe that you cannot have proper reconstruction without first pacifying the insurgents/terrorists that wreak havoc throughout the country. And if we pull out in 2009 then we will leave our allies to bridge the gap that is left, stretching out their resources and manpower.

Second I believe that the only reason that the antiwar/peacenik...etc crowd want us to pull out is because all they see or rather all the media reports is the negative that goes on in the country such as Soldiers dying in the line of duty or civilians being caught in the crossfire, they don't see or hear how much the country has progressed in the short time that we have been there (A functioning Government, Education..etc). That is why people are so against the war because they don't see the positive only the negative. I say this because I have talked to a couple off these individuals, and the only reasons that they can come up with is military and civilian casualties or the more popular one "We are just America's lackey" or "We are just there for the oil" and if you try and discuss with them of why we should stay, then they will keep coming up with these points and nothing else.


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Jun 2007)

A Reuters report on the PM's wobbling:
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=6db673de-ef60-4a1d-98cb-291f7601ab70&k=54700



> Canada might continue some sort of military involvement in Afghanistan after its current mission in the southern city of Kandahar ends in February 2009, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Friday.
> 
> It looked increasingly clear that any major combat role would have to end in 2009, because of lack of support from opposition parties, though political leaders were not ruling out tamer roles in peacekeeping or in development.
> 
> ...



As for Kabul, note this; Citoyen Dion may be a bit out of touch:

Taleban 'shifting focus to Kabul'

The Taleban in Afghanistan are changing their tactics to mount more attacks on the capital, Kabul, a spokesman for the militant group has told the BBC. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6224900.stm

Meanwhile the _Toronto Star's_ Thomas Walkom can bathe in smug self-satisfaction :rage::

Harper finally able to read the writing on the wall
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/228833



> Canada's Kandahar adventure is effectively finished. Canadian soldiers will continue to die in Afghanistan's south until the mission reaches its official end, 19 months from now. But even Prime Minister Stephen Harper has acknowledged that our efforts there can't be sustained.
> 
> The reasons are twofold and intertwined. First, NATO's war against Afghan insurgents is not succeeding. Second, there is not enough political support for that war here at home.
> 
> ...



Hurl.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Jun 2007)

A post at _The Torch_:

Afstan: What our lack of stomach means
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/afstan-our-lack-of-stomach.html 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Jun 2007)

A good piece by Jeffrey Simpson in the _Globe and Mail_:

The travels of Flora: going where few Westerners go
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070627/COSIMP27/Columnists/columnists/columnistsNational/2/2/3/



> Flora MacDonald, the well-known Conservative cabinet minister from the Mulroney era, turned 81 earlier this year but looks at least 15 years younger. While others her age, and younger, slow down, Ms. MacDonald keeps moving. She's just returned to Canada from her eighth trip to Afghanistan in the past seven years.
> 
> Flora, as everyone calls her, goes where few Westerners go.
> 
> ...



And a piece by Andrew Coyne that I do not think really undercuts the arguments made in my post at _The Torch_ cited in the comment immediately above:

Harper's J-turn on Afghanistan
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=d4a14cf2-5148-4d51-8359-fff8274ab8e3

What did it mean, that little offhand comment of the Prime Minister's the other day, to the effect that he would want "to see some degree of consensus" before renewing the Canadian Forces' current mission in Afghanistan?

Did it mean, as the defeatist chorus in certain sections of the media triumphantly proclaimed (triumphalist defeatists?), that Stephen Harper had buckled to his critics? Was the Toronto Star's Tom Walkom right to claim, on the strength of this one statement, that "Canada's Kandahar adventure is effectively finished," that "Canadian soldiers will continue to die in Afghanistan's south until the mission reaches its official end, 19 months from now," but after that it's back to the barracks? Should we trust The Globe and Mail's Lawrence Martin's judgment that "these were code words for the end of our war mission," that "in a year and a half, other North Atlantic Treaty Organization partners can take their turn at the combat role."

I don't believe it. That's not what the Prime Minister said, and it doesn't fit with anything else we know about him. I know he's reversed himself before, sometimes spectacularly. But this is something that goes to his very core. I do not believe that the same man who not a month ago, on his second visit to Afghanistan, declared that "our work is not complete," that "we cannot just put down our arms and hope for peace," that "we can't set arbitrary deadlines and simply wish for the best," would suddenly have decided to do just that.

What in fact did the Prime Minister say? He said "I would hope that the view of Canadians is not to simply abandon Afghanistan. I think there is some expectation that there would be a new role after February, 2009, but obviously those decisions have yet to be taken." He said "this mission will end in February, 2009. Should Canada be involved militarily after that date, we've been clear that would have to be approved by the Canadian Parliament." And he said this: "I would want to see some degree of consensus around that. I don't want to send people into a mission if the opposition is going to, at home, undercut the dangerous work that they are doing in the field."

Perhaps my decoder ring is not working as well as Lawrence's, but I don't see any U-turns in this...

...By declaring that he will seek consensus on any future deployment, the Prime Minister shifts the focus from his own intransigence to the opposition's. He implicates them in the decision, and in so doing puts the onus on them to explain their position.

And explain it they must. The NDP's at least has a kind of coherence. They are against fighting the Taliban, preferring to negotiate-- though what incentive the Taliban would have to negotiate after we had declared we would not fight them would be interesting to hear. The Liberals, on the other hand, would seem to believe that the Taliban should be fought, just not by us; that our troops should be there, but not use their weapons.

All right, I'll bite: who should fight them? Whom do the Liberals nominate to replace us, among the countries that have refused to fight thus far? The French? The Italians? How are they to be compelled to step forward, even as we retreat? The reality is that, should Canada pull out of the fighting, the gap will have to be filled by the countries that are doing it now -- the British, the Americans and the Dutch. Their mission won't end in February, 2009 [actually the Dutch parliament will vote this summer on whether to extend their mission beyond 2008; vote could be close]. Only ours will...

There's another sense in which it is a good thing to seek "consensus" from the opposition. Read the last part of the Prime Minister's remarks: "I don't want to send people into a mission if the opposition is going to, at home, undercut the dangerous work that they are doing in the field." Translated: that's exactly what's happening now.

The Taliban read the Western press. They are looking for the weak link in the NATO chain, and having found it, they will exploit it -- by killing as many soldiers from that country as they can. *If critics of the war should not be accused of supporting the Taliban, neither should critics of the critics be accused of suppressing debate if they point out that there are consequences to their fecklessness. The Prime Minister has invited them to grow up. They should accept* [emphasis added]. 

They won't.

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (27 Jun 2007)

This is all predicated on the assumption that we are still operating under a minority government.....if a majority should come Harper's way, why the whole question becomes moot....


----------



## observor 69 (27 Jun 2007)

Harper's J-turn on Afghanistan
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=d4a14cf2-5148-4d51-8359-fff8274ab8e3


"The Taliban read the Western press. They are looking for the weak link in the NATO chain, and having found it, they will exploit it -- by killing as many soldiers from that country as they can."

Agreed

 "If critics of the war should not be accused of supporting the Taliban, neither should critics of the critics be accused of suppressing debate if they point out that there are consequences to their fecklessness. The Prime Minister has invited them to grow up. They should accept [emphasis added]. "

I feel it is the duty of a loyal Opposition to criticize government policy that they see as wrong. This applies to the US Congress and Iraq and to Canada's Parliament and Afghanistan.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Harper's J-turn on Afghanistan
> http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=d4a14cf2-5148-4d51-8359-fff8274ab8e3
> 
> 
> ...



My emphasis added.

I couldn't agree more but, just as Prime Minister Harper has failed (miserably, in my view) to explain this mission to parliament and to Canadians, the opposition parties have failed, just as miserably, to explain why we should _cut and run_.

The hypocrisy is greatest, almost unbelievably so, amongst the Liberals who, as Ruxted said, sent us to Afghanistan, to ISAF, for base and disgraceful reasons and then sent us to conduct combat operations in Kandahar.  They have, in my view *NO* principled position - they are just trying to twist the mission and the soldiers to suit their own partisan political purposes.  Of course, as I have said several times before here in Army.ca, I fear that Prime Minister Harper is no better.  I suspect that Harper, like Dion and Layton, has no interest in Canada living up to the much touted (especially by the cowardly hypocrites in the Liberal Party of Canada) Responsibility to Protect.  He (the PM) is also using the troops and the mission as props in his second rate political theatrics.

Our Canadian politicians are a really sad, third rate lot, aren't they?  *Just what we deserve!*


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Jun 2007)

E.R. Campbell: Steve Harper is no Tony Blair.  This is what Steve never says;
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tonyblair/story/0,,2112771,00.html



> "I am truly sorry about the dangers they [UK forces] face today in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know some think they are facing these dangers in vain. But I do not and never will.
> 
> "*I believe they are fighting for the security of this country in the wider world against people who would destroy our way of life* [emphasis added]...



Our government is unwilling to speak the simple truth because it might upset some people.  We are not just trying to reconstruct Afstan and help the women.  We are defending our national interest.  But one cannot say that in Canada, unlike in the UK.  Fools we are.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (27 Jun 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> E.R. Campbell: Steve Harper is no Tony Blair.  This is what Steve never says;
> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tonyblair/story/0,,2112771,00.html
> 
> Our government is unwilling to speak the simple truth because it might upset some people.  We are not just trying to reconstruct Afghanistan and help the women.  We are defending our national interest.  But one cannot say that in Canada, unlike in the UK.  Fools we are.
> ...



Sorry I can't buy that, the terrorists just moved to Pakistan. And Musharraf is in to shaky a political position to deal with them.
As for Blair's statement in the House, did you expect him to say anything else?

Our policy presently in Afghan is to help the people get back into a stable state such that they can determine their own future? 
 Is this a reasonable goal ?
Does the west have a sufficiently informed understanding of this country, it's people and it's past.

Is there anything the west can realistically accomplish ? I consider myself reasonably well  informed on this issue and have to admit I have no answer on whether such an end state exists. 
And as Mr.Campbell has said you won't find the answer in Parliament where everyone is too busy playing politics with the issue.

Commentators have said that things in Iraq are beyond saving, there are no good options left.
Could we be stuck in a situation in Afghanistan where in spite of our good work and intentions we really have little influence on the outcome?


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Jun 2007)

A stark divide in Canadian attitudes:

Harper handed Afghan agenda to the Opposition
_Ottawa Citizen_, June 28, letter to the editor
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=c33215b6-62ce-47ef-b927-c6d2fe5dec2b



> Re: Parliamentary consensus required to extend mission, Harper says, June 23.
> http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=5e0a080e-4b14-4ff8-a2db-18ced16ad3ef
> 
> With one incomprehensible and unconscionable action, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has achieved three things: surrendered to the Taliban; increased the threat to our troops serving in Afghanistan; and forfeited management of national foreign and defence policy to Stephane Dion.
> ...



Stephen Harper finally sees the writing on the wall
_Ottawa Citizen_, June 28, by Steven Staples
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=e067e52b-516c-4236-90d6-b91cb591c6ba


> ...
> In a broader context, Prime Minister Harper's remarks last week may signal that the current military buildup and transformation of the Canadian Forces from peacekeepers to war fighters has reached its zenith.
> 
> The war has been used to justify an increase of billions in military sending, a reorganization of the forces to better fight the U.S.-led War on Terror, and more than $20-billion in planned equipment purchases.
> ...



Steve's agenda is simple: Canadian Forces that do not fight.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Jun 2007)

Babbling Brooks vivisects a member of "the urbanista journalistic elite of Toronto":
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/opinions-are-like-assholes.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Boxkicker (28 Jun 2007)

Maybe it is time that we should be allowed to communicate publicly on this subject, and do what most soldier can do best call a spade a spade. I for one will ask the minister from my home email address that we as the soldiers of this country be allowed to speak about this mission and how we feel.
  Tell the people the truth about UN missions and how much of a load of crap they are. Along with saying the truth about how much of a bunch of true hypocrites the Liberals are. 
  Yes we are supposed to be apolitical but I for one am tired of hearing how we, as the soldiers of this country are so supported by those bunch of lying crooks.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2007)

Boxkicker said:
			
		

> Maybe it is time that we should be allowed to communicate publicly on this subject, and do what most soldier can do best call a spade a spade. I for one will ask the minister from my home email address that we as the soldiers of this country be allowed to speak about this mission and how we feel.
> Tell the people the truth about UN missions and how much of a load of crap they are. Along with saying the truth about how much of a bunch of true hypocrites the Liberals are.
> Yes we are supposed to be apolitical but I for one am tired of hearing how we, as the soldiers of this country are so supported by those bunch of lying crooks.



You ARE allowed to speak, but make sure you clear it through your CoC, and ensure your head is screwed on very tight, since straying out of your lane can cause all kinds of problems and there are some "journalists" who would like nothing better than for you to put your foot in your mouth (and they will work hard to get you into that position).

Facts, figures and personal observation are your best weapons in this kind of engagement.


----------



## Brockvegas (28 Jun 2007)

First of all, let me say that I in no way pretend to be an expert on politics, or Afghanistan. So if I wander outside my lane, feel free to nudge me back in the right direction.

Canada, especially when it comes to our military, has spent the better part of a century building the reputation of being the military equivalent of a protective "big brother". We have always thrived on helping out the "underdogs" of the world, defending those who cannot defend themselves, and in doing so have made a name for ourselves as one of, if not THE, worlds greatest Peacekeepers.

I find it both saddening and sickening that after all this time, our government would hold out a hand to someone who needs our help, and just as they are starting to reach up to take that hand, Mr. Harper is going to pull that hand away and turn his back on them.

I have both family and friends fighting in Afghanistan. I have spoken with them about how Afghan civilians feel about our soldiers being in their country. In Kandahar, a province that the media wants us to believe has a large number of people who do not want us there, I've been told that nearly every person welcomes the Canadians, especially the children.

So, to Mr. Harper I say this: Forget concensus in Parliament, and do what you know is right. If you turn your back on the people of Afghanistan now, you will PERMANENTLY damage a worldwide reputation that has taken this country generations to build. And don't forget that the people who welcome us over there now, will remember what you do too.


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Jun 2007)

MND stand firm (but he really is a terrible political liability):
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070628.woconnor28/BNStory/National/home



> A defiant Gordon O'Connor said yesterday [June 27] he has no intention of quitting as Defence Minister, and warned his critics not to assume he is about to turfed from the portfolio in a widely expected cabinet shuffle.
> 
> "I can assure you of one thing: I'm not retiring and I'm not resigning," Mr. O'Connor told reporters at a military conference in Kingston. "And if you want to run a pool, go ahead. You're going to lose."
> 
> ...



I do not understand why ministers generally do not hammer home much more forcefully the real "exit strategy" in the bolded bits. Certainly the media do not seem to understand or analyze it.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Boxkicker (28 Jun 2007)

Brockvegas said:
			
		

> I find it both saddening and sickening that after all this time, our government would hold out a hand to someone who needs our help, and just as they are starting to reach up to take that hand, Mr. Harper is going to pull that hand away and turn his back on them.



  Blame Stepahne Dion or Jack Layton. Yeah true the PM is playing to the polls right now, but he has said he wants to be a government that listens to the people to.


----------



## armyvern (28 Jun 2007)

Boxkicker said:
			
		

> Blame Stepahne Dion or Jack Layton. Yeah true the PM is playing to the polls right now, but he has said he wants to be a government that listens to the people to.



Playing the polls isn't leading, and I missed the part where Dion and Layton duct-taped over the ruling parties mouths. 

Nobody on this thread has advocated that the public NOT be given a chance to voice their desire and/or lack of it about mission continuance past 2009.

What they HAVE advocated is that the Canadian public be "LED" in a fully informed manner. Sitting back and saying nothing is not leading, and is most certainly NOT allowing Canadians the opportunity to make an INFORMED decision based upon the actualities of the situation in Afghanistan and our mission there. Quite certainly, you may also find that a _properly informed _ public ... may influence the polls in an upwards direction of support for the mission.

What is so hard for you to grasp about that??


----------



## Boxkicker (28 Jun 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> You ARE allowed to speak, but make sure you clear it through your CoC, and ensure your head is screwed on very tight, since straying out of your lane can cause all kinds of problems and there are some "journalists" who would like nothing better than for you to put your foot in your mouth (and they will work hard to get you into that position).
> 
> Facts, figures and personal observation are your best weapons in this kind of engagement.



  I know we can speak to the media but what I am saying is I keep hearing how the LIBS keep saying that "WE SUPPORT OUR SOLDIERS", and we all know that is a crock of S**T. I would like to be able to express some of my personal feelings on that subject. 
 You know thing like know MR Dion I have never felt any support from you Liberals, and please do us a favor no more UN missions in which we watch 3rd world armies sell off there kit to the belligerents.  Also please dont call me a peacekeeper I am a soldier, that term of peacekeeper is insulting. If I am on a peacekeeping mission then so be it, but otherwise I am a soldier.


----------



## Boxkicker (28 Jun 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Playing the polls isn't leading.



 You are so very correct on this point.


----------



## Brockvegas (28 Jun 2007)

"What they HAVE advocated is that the Canadian public be "LED" in a fully informed manner. Sitting back and saying nothing is not leading, and is most certainly NOT allowing Canadians the opportunity to make an INFORMED decision based upon the actualities of the situation in Afghanistan and our mission there. Quite certainly, you may also find that a properly informed public ... may influence the polls in an upwards direction of support for the mission."

100% Agree with you on that. Unfortunately, I don't believe that Canadians, at this time, ARE getting all the information they need to make an informed decision.


----------



## armyvern (28 Jun 2007)

Brockvegas said:
			
		

> 100% Agree with you on that. Unfortunately, I don't believe that Canadians, at this time, ARE getting all the information they need to make an informed decision.



And that is the whole point of the Ruxted article located here regarding Canada's current mission in Afghanistan and Her foreign policy.

The sound of silence is deafening.


----------



## Brockvegas (28 Jun 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And that is the whole point of the Ruxted article located here regarding Canada's current mission in Afghanistan and Her foreign policy.
> 
> The sound of silence is deafening.



Yeah, that's what got me all fired up in the first place.(Well, today anyways) It really frustrates the hell out of me when people start spouting off things they've heard in the news, and saying that's why they don't support the mission, not even realizing that they haven't the foggiest what's going on over there.


----------



## observor 69 (28 Jun 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And that is the whole point of the Ruxted article located here regarding Canada's current mission in Afghanistan and Her foreign policy.
> 
> The sound of silence is deafening.



+ 1 Vern


----------



## observor 69 (30 Jun 2007)

Gwynne Dyer and  The Mess They Made :
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=e8ecfd91-41c1-47fc-93a1-dec77392dbaa

All things considered, (the current NATO action) will have much less impact than the Russian intervention. In fact, what's happening now is really a coda to that, of what has been in progress for 30 years. Canada's participation is not small, providing one-seventh of the total combat forces. It's really Canadians, Americans, Brits and the Dutch, with the others hiding."

And what of the February 2009 timetable for withdrawal of combat troops, which Stephen Harper may have reluctantly signed onto of late? "If I was PM, I'd call a cabinet meeting tomorrow, call (General) Rick Hillier at noon and begin sending the forces home next week."

"There is just no point in sacrificing more lives because we are not going to make a difference. We are not going to change that country. Sorry, no offence intended, but they are basically a nation of hicks. It will be up to them, and there are actually some hopeful signs. The Taliban is widely regarded as a monolithic force, but it isn't. It's a creation of the (Pakistani secret police) ISI. And it's worth remembering that it wasn't the Taliban who attacked the West, but al-Qaida. Any Afghanistan that follows will have to include the Pashtun majority this time, no question. It will be messy. But we cannot do this for them."

In fact, Dyer's essential message in the book, also applied to Iraq, is that the West should essentially butt out of the Middle East, period. As soon as possible. In his reading, the only strategic interest the West really has there is oil. As long as that supply continues along, our interventions can only make matters worse. True, there will be carnage, and it's entirely possible that several regimes will pass to Islamist hands. With the fall of Marxism and nothing happening on the liberal democracy front, the clerics and their militias are virtually the only opposition available in a myriad of regional repressive jurisdictions.

As Dyer points out, the current struggle in Iraq ("let's just call it a civil war until something worse comes along") is not merely between Sunni and Shia (and secular Kurds), but between radical Islamist Sunni and radical Islamist Shia.

"The crusade should be cancelled for a lack of interest. This is a waste of lives. We must leave them alone, and in that I include the Israelis, who have de facto now unwittingly accepted a one-state solution along with the Palestinians, who have chosen that awful route."

Much of the coming Middle East "will not be a pretty place," Dyer predicts. "It will a bad idea to be a woman or a so-called intellectual. But the statism in Arab politics we've known is at an end."

As to our capacity in the West to provide a fix, Dyer points to this week's naming of Tony Blair as Middle East super-envoy. "Imagine choosing one of the principal architects of this mess to straighten it out. Incredible."

Dyer ends his introduction with a trademarked blunt closer. "It's none of our business," he writes.

"In the long run, (Western non-involvement) will certainly be better for the peoples of the region than perpetual foreign tutelage. And it will not harm the West's interests, so long as the oil continues to flow. Apart from that, the entire region is of little economic or strategic importantance to the rest of the world. Lie back, and try to enjoy the ride."

Some kinda fun.

akellogg@thejournal.canwest.com


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Jun 2007)

Gwynne Dyer and his aweful isolationism.  Look how well that worked out for us on 9/11, for the USS Cole, for the embassies in Africa..


the list goes on


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jun 2007)

Strategically Gwynne Dyer is spot on when he says: *"... the West should essentially butt out of the Middle East, period. As soon as possible ... the only strategic interest the West really has there is oil. As long as that supply continues along, our interventions can only make matters worse. True, there will be carnage, and it's entirely possible that several regimes will pass to Islamist hands. With the fall of Marxism and nothing happening on the liberal democracy front, the clerics and their militias are virtually the only opposition available in a myriad of regional repressive jurisdictions."*

We have no interests, vital or otherwise, other than resources in most of the world.  None, I would suggest (again, except resources) anywhere in Africa, the Middle East or West and Central Asia.  Some of our friends and _competitors_ - India, China, Indonesia - *do* have vital interests in West and Central Asia, and *may* have a few (again, resources excepted) in the Middle East and Africa, too.

What about Iran's nuclear weapons and Israel's survival?  Well, Israel sure has a vital interest in both but it's not clear to me that Canada has a *strategic* vital interest there.  We, many (most? just a few?) of us, anyway, may have an emotional, historical or just plain human interest in preserving a small liberal democracy or a 'people' with some claim on our pity but that's not the same a strategic interest.  It will be a great shame if (more likely when) Israel finally cannot manage to win every war – as it must if it is to survive.  It will be a human tragedy and we ought to be ready, willing and able to accept a flood of  sophisticated, highly ‘cultured’ refugees from Israel – to our mutual benefit.

What about America's role as the world's policeman?  Why bother in Barnett's "gap"?  Well, Barnett, of course, offers cogent reasons for the US to lead the world in an effort to bring the "gap" nations into the "functioning core" and he advocates the right ways, too: private investment, private enterprise and so on but, and this is a huge *BUT* none of things will work until the people, themselves, in the 'gap' nations decide, for themselves, in their own ways to make their societies ready and able to accept the solutions Barnett proposes.  We cannot do that for them and there is no ‘quick fix,’ either.  It is the work of generations – probably, as Dyer suggests, bloody, violent work.

Some of our friends and competitors may decide that their interests, real or imagined, require them to intervene or remain engaged in the “gap” regions; some of our friends may invite or otherwise _encourage_ us to join or remain with them.  We *do* have a vital interest in keeping on the good side of our friends and we might well decide that aid to and interference in the “gap,” useless though either will be, is required to satisfy *that* vital interest.


----------



## Brockvegas (30 Jun 2007)

E.R. Campbell, 

Sir, while I do bow to your years of experience, and as a general rule, I do not debate the word of a veteran, I am slightly troubled by your post.

While I agree with the FACTS of your statement, it came across (to me anyway) like you don't believe we should become involved in any conflict unless we have a "Strategic vital interest" in the region.

Please clarify for me if that was the opinion you were trying to purvey. If I misread, or am incorrect in my understanding I do apologize.


----------



## McG (30 Jun 2007)

Brockvegas said:
			
		

> Canada, especially when it comes to our military, has spent the better part of a century building the reputation of being the military equivalent of a protective "big brother". We have always thrived on helping out the "underdogs" of the world, defending those who cannot defend themselves, and in doing so have made a name for ourselves as one of, if not THE, worlds greatest Peacekeepers.


That being the case, maybe we should listen to Ruxted on the hypocracy of abandoning Kandahar while still claiming to be peacekeepers.  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63566.0.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jun 2007)

Brockvegas said:
			
		

> E.R. Campbell,
> 
> Sir, while I do bow to your years of experience, and as a general rule, I do not debate the word of a veteran, I am slightly troubled by your post.
> 
> ...



Hmmm …

Why should we, the people of Canada, acting through our elected government send our young men and women off to fight and die?

There are some obvious ‘good’ reasons: someone attacks us, for example – and there are many who would argue that _al Qaeda_ *did* just that and, since it had its base in Afghanistan, our mission in Afghanistan (starting in Kandahar in early 2002) is our _self defence_ response and we ought not to stop fighting in Afghanistan until we are sure the Taliban and al Qaeda’s other allies in that region are defeated.

We do have *vital interests* – all over the world.  Canada is on the verge of being a ‘creditor nation’.  That means we own a good chunk of the world – soon, more than the rest of the world owns of us.  And I do mean *’we’* because the CPP invests in Canadian companies and more and more Canadian companies have extensive and growing global holding.  I don’t want to conjure up shades of the United Fruit Company in Central America but economic interests matter and they *may* need to be protected.

Those, plus the one I mentioned above – staying ‘allied’ with allies,  are valid reasons to commit troops to operations.

I am opposed to missions which have no sound strategic _raison d’être_.

But: We are one of the world’s most favoured nations.  Geography, history and our own efforts combined to bless us.  Should we not accept some responsibility to help or protect those who are less fortunate?

How _tolerable_ is it that Haiti is in our ‘neighbourhood’ but remains one of the world’s poorest, least ‘developed’ nations in the world?  We should understand, by now, that sending money, followed by more money and a few do-gooders from NGOs will not, because it cannot, change anything.  If we decide to accept our *responsibility* in the world then we need to understand that:

1. There are real, practical limits to how much we can do; and  

2. Development takes time - lots of it.

We can, either, decide on the easy but totally ineffectual way and continue to scamper from country to country, dropping dollops of cash and staging political photo ops or we can pick a few place – like Afghanistan, like Haiti -and the commit for the long term, which may be generation*s*.

I don’t think we, as a country, are going to change any time soon.  We, like the other countries in the West, are still going to  do the wrong thing and we’ll do it the wrong way, too.

But, you tell me: should we “get involved in any conflict” even though we have no vital interest at stake.  Should we turn the CF into ‘rent-a-thug’?  

I have no objection to sending soldiers to fight and die if it is in our national interest.  I object to Canadians – leaders and followers alike – failing to understand what out interests are.

----------
P.S. Ideas are neither good nor bad just because they come from a veteran - or any old fart, for that matter.  If I'm wrong say so and tell me why - don't excuse my errors because I'm old.


----------



## observor 69 (30 Jun 2007)

IMHO Mr.Campbell you are speaking the pragmatic, objective truth.

You're playin' with fire sir.


----------



## Brockvegas (1 Jul 2007)

Mr. Campbell,

QUOTE
"Should we not accept some responsibility to help or protect those who are less fortunate?"
UNQUOTE

Absolutely. If you want to know exactly how I feel about this, please go back to page 37 in this thread and read reply #543.

QUOTE
"But, you tell me: should we “get involved in any conflict” even though we have no vital interest at stake.  Should we turn the CF into ‘rent-a-thug’?"
UNQUOTE

Seeing as this thread pertains to the mission in Afghanistan, and whether or not we should be there, your origional post (once again, in MY opinion) sounded as though you don't think we have a "strategic interest" there.

And no, I don't think we should use the CF as a "rent-a-thug". Unless, of course, that's what you think were using them as right now in Afghanistan.

QUOTE
"P.S. Ideas are neither good nor bad just because they come from a veteran - or any old fart, for that matter.  If I'm wrong say so and tell me why - don't excuse my errors because I'm old."
UNQUOTE

Sir, I was neither pointing out errors, nor excusing them. I was merely seeking clarification, so that I can better understand your point of view.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jul 2007)

I think we have *three* vital interests at play in Afghanistan:

1.	Self-defence - the (Taliban) Government of Afghanistan provided real support to the 'base' organization (al Qaeda) which attacked us;

2.	Staying allied with allies - we are a _charter member_ and a one-time and would-be-again leader of the West.  We were asked to 'step up' and shoulder some of the burden of *peacemaking*.  We did, as we should have; and

3.	Responsibility to Protect.  I believe that some Canadians - not very many, I hasten to add - actually believe in the R2P doctrine which we pushed so hard in the UN throughout the '90s.

Each, in and of itself, is *insufficient* to justify sending Canadian troops and treasure into battle but any two, taken together might be, when all three are factored in it is an easy choice.

What about e.g. Darfur?

R2P is, certainly, at play but none of the others, (self defence, alliance obligations, economic interests) are _operative_ so I say No! to Darfur.  Ditto Haiti, for now, anyway – but I am prepared to understand that that the current government may want to use it as part of the ‘neighbourhood’ argument and there is a modestly important _kith and kin_ argument in three or four Montreal area electoral ridings.  Those two factors could see us in Haiti, again.  I have heard _beer fuelled_ *rumours* to the effect that some planners want a two mission profile:

1.	Haiti – assigned, primarily, to 5th and 34th brigades; and

2.	Afghanistan – assigned to almost everyone else. 

It makes just enough *political* sense to have some basis in fact; there is an overwhelming _desire_ in Ottawa for generals to want to be politicized bureaucrats and bureaucrats to want to be military operations planners.  Everyone always wants to piddle in the other fellow’s pool.

In short: I have trouble imagining, right now, how we might find one vital interest sufficient to justify sending troops into battle – but two or three together are in play, right now, in Afghanistan.

If the government of the day is serious about wanting Canada to play a leadership role (and I’m not convinced that’s very high on the PM's ‘to do’ list) then PM Harper needs to stop governing by poll and point the foreign affairs _machine_ in the right direction.  Now I understand, from the media and the rumour mill that the PM is trying to push the striped pants brigade into line but it’s a slow, arduous process.  Foreign Affairs is only a pale, weak imitation of the powerhouse department it was until the 1970s.  It may be necessary to rebuild the department before it can do much useful.  (The civil service is divided into two very distinct _classes_.  The _upper class_ was (until _circa 1970_) found in External Affairs, Finance and, of course, the PCO; the _lower classes_ were in all other departments. (Briefly, in the early ‘40s, CD Howe’s team joined the _upper class_.)  Now there are only two departments in the _upper class_: Finance and PCO.)


Edit: I have heard _beer fuelled_ *rumours* to


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Jul 2007)

I have hear beer fuelled rumours to the effect that some planners want a two mission profile:

1.   Haiti – assigned, primarily, to 5th and 34th brigades; and

2.   Afghanistan – assigned to almost everyone else. 

That is just a dumb enough idea to fly. Before I get into a rough staff check on its feasibility, remember that the CDS has just stated that we can maintain a 2500 person commitment post-09 in Afghanistan. Implied in that is (a) with our existing force structure, and (b) without taking on another major deployment. Or at least, that is how I understand it.

Let's say we take on Haiti with 5 and 34 Bdes providing the manpower. We are probably talking a battle group of three subunits of two rifle/mech coys and a lt armd sqn, perhaps a tac hel flight, some UAVs, and the HQ/NSE organization. Heck, let's toss in a PRT with its own security element. This seems to me to take us back to the six months in theatre and twelve months at home cycle.

This will also have a ripple effect on Afghanistan by decreasing the mean time between tours for the rest of the army, I wonder in particular if we can support two separate operations medically. To my tiny mind, reducing the Afghanistan contingent does not reduce the support requirement proportionally. Maybe it even makes the challenges more difficult. 

Now toss another disaster calling for DART or another flood or ice storm, or, heaven forbid, a large scale internal security crisis into the equation, and we are getting close to running a personnel deficit.

I'm not trying to be a pessimists, but my old J3 Plans experience at contingency planning kicked in, and I don't like what I see. Perhaps somebody smarter and more current than I can come up with a way for it to work. If so, please do.


----------



## armyvern (1 Jul 2007)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I have *hear* beer fuelled rumours to the effect that some planners want a two mission profile:



I can tell they're beer fuelled!! Were you??  

Scary rumors to read none the less.  :-\


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Jul 2007)

Old Sweat-

Let us not forget the support bill for the 2010 Olympics, too.  I don't see how two separate missions like Haiti and Afghanistan can be maintained post-2009, without doing something fancy like signing an Order-In-Council bringing a bunch of Militia Regiments into a Special Force.  Even then- that does not solve the problems with key enablers like airlift and medical staff...

As an aside- Michael Byers was interviewed on CBC Radio 1 this morning (he is hawking his new book).  His thesis seems to be:

Canada's foreign policy should be based upon doing whatever the Americans are not doing.

He also advocated us pulling out of Afghanistan (because the Americans are there and the Mujhahadeen will beat us <his words>) and invading Sudan (he didn't say "invade", but that was what it would be- an invasion).  He said that in his analysis, it would be a push over- apparently the opposition there is only "on camels and armed with .303 rifles". (his exact words)  :

I'm frequently astounded by academic types who, having never spent a day in uniform, claim to know our job better than us and can't do something basic like open an atlas (the problem in Darfur comes into stark focus, even if you do nothing else).


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Jul 2007)

SKT,

Agreed, Let's put the idea in the beer-fueled bin and concentrate on Afghanistan.

I didn't hear Prof Byers, thank goodness, but if he thinks invading the Sudan is just a case of bashing the Camel Corps, good luck to him. His two main points are self-defeating, as not very many militaries in the world can do anything useful in a place like that without American support.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jul 2007)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Old Sweat-
> 
> Let us not forget the support bill for the 2010 Olympics, too.  I don't see how two separate missions like Haiti and Afghanistan can be maintained post-2009, without doing something fancy like signing an Order-In-Council bringing a bunch of Militia Regiments into a Special Force.  Even then- that does not solve the problems with key enablers like airlift and medical staff...
> 
> ...



I heard the same interview.  Byers is an 'expert' on the *law* of war - that's why I'm not overly surprised at his dismay with e.g. Alberto Gonzales who, as White House Counsel, declared that the Geneva Conventions were *quaint* and, therefore, not to be followed too closely.

But Byers, like that other law professor, Trudeau, is a bit of a one-note-wonder.  He wants - doubtlessly very sincerely - the UN to *work* and he wants Canada to lead, within the UN.  He has to force every situation to fit his one big idea (remember Isaiah Berlin's fox vs hedgehog analogy?) and sometimes he has to bend logic and truth to make the fit.


----------



## Flip (1 Jul 2007)

It's pretty clear to me that we (civlian) Canadians are having quite enough
trouble grasping the mission we have in Afghanistan.

Adding Haiti or Sudan adds mud to the water and frankly, I 
don't see either being in our direct national interest.

R2P is a Canadian "Value", but there is precious little capacity to go around.



> Gwynne Dyer and his aweful isolationism.  Look how well that worked out for us on 9/11, for the USS Cole, for the embassies in Africa..
> the list goes on



Isolationism? - No, defeatism (I think).

Call the enemy by it's name ( Radical Islamism ) and deal with that.......
Once nut jobs like the Taliban and AQ start to control or threaten chunks 
of the middle east the west won't be able to protect anybody.

Darfur is a victim of the same enemy..........enemy of decency I might add.
but beyond the wests collective grasp as long as China and Russia 
oppose what the west does just on principal. 

If R2P isn't enough in Afghanistan - It sure as hell won't be enough 
in Haiti or Darfur.

Just my few meandering thoughts.........


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Jul 2007)

> (remember Isaiah Berlin's fox vs hedgehog analogy?)



I had to go to Google for that one, Edward!


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Jul 2007)

We are, Edward, also stuck in a morass of O'Connor's making - the CPC defence policy of the last election which he authored. [The last gem came from a member of his campaign team.] That policy, widely called "Canada First," had regional assistance battalions, an airborne battalion at Trenton and a training centre/troops and icebreakers for the north. Leaving aside the airborne battalion, which is an emotional issue for many of us and is being discussed elsewhere, there is a (very) little merit in the regional assistance battalions, perhaps a bit more in the ice breakers and none at all in stationing southerners in the High Arctic.

Repeat after me - there is no military threat to the Canadian north. Now, write it in your notebook. There is a requirement for SAR, for environmental monitoring and cleanup purposes and for somebody to show the flag. There is no need for a land force unit to stand on guard there. 

Hopefully that is being recognized by the great men and women who are drafting the statement. I hope that his grand scheme is not at the root of the difficulties in gaining support in the PCO.


----------



## observor 69 (1 Jul 2007)

The White House Situation Room is a 5,000 square foot conference and intelligence management center in the basement of the West Wing of the White House. It is run by the National Security Council staff for the use of the President of the United States and his advisors (including Homeland Security and the White House chief of staff) to monitor and deal with crises at home and abroad and to conduct secure communications with outside (often overseas) persons. The Situation Room is equipped with secure, advanced communications equipment for the President to maintain command and control of U.S. forces around the world. It should not be confused with the Presidential Emergency Operations Center which is situated under the East Wing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Situation_Room


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Jul 2007)

_Why we quit_: sixty CF members have been killed, it's a long slog, the Karzai government isn't great, Canadians don't like this kind of combat stuff, we're involved in a civil war, blah, blah, blah...Scott Taylor and a columnist in the _Victoria Times Colonist_ give typical summaries of the "give up" position.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/844966.html
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=15aca9e3-4b83-4b2a-9f0f-82e80b567d48

The wrong stuff, indeed.  *Visceral pacifism* I would say.

Some "context": in the first sixth months of 2007 191 people were killed on highways patrolled by the Ontario Provincial Police--that does not include deaths on roadways patrolled by municipal forces or the RCMP (or, presumably, Native police forces).
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20070701/highway_crashes_070701/20070701?hub=TorontoHome

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## armyvern (2 Jul 2007)

I agree MarkO,

Heck even my 12 year old daughter has made a comment pretty much as I have it below while watching the news of the latest fallen ...

"Mom, I know it's not nice that soldiers are dying but in World War Two more than that would die in a single day. Were they that mad at the government then too? I'm glad the government didn't listen to the adults way back then."

I'm proud of her. A 12 year old who actually gets it. The sad reality is that it's the cause that should be important, not the numbers. Funny thing is by her comment "were they that mad at the government then too" she was referring to the news commentators...even she can pick up their bias.


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Jul 2007)

ArmyVern: A child (daughter to make the point) with brains and heart.  Who also knows some history.  You as parents are lucky, as is your daughter, compared with the abyss of ignorance and attitude that envelops our country.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Jul 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> compared with the abyss of ignorance and attitude that envelops our country.



I frequently wonder about that.  I have yet to come across someone who is vocally against our mission to Afghanistan.  It would be nice to see come election time all these polls that have been doctored up and skewed with regards to peoples support come back and bite the opposition in the arse.  The shameless politicizing of this mission has been truly disgusting, and borders on the criminal.  

From the Criminal Code:

Offences in relation to military forces
62. (1) Every one who wilfully 

(a) interferes with, impairs or influences the loyalty or discipline of a member of a force,

(b) publishes, edits, issues, circulates or distributes a writing that advises, counsels or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force, or

(c) advises, counsels, urges or in any manner causes insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

I would really love to know why it is that these media types are allowed to blather on ad infinatum in moral breaking and enemy bolstering ways, without being brought to task for it.


----------



## JLeclerc (4 Jul 2007)

zipperhead_cop: Ahh the wonderful freedom of the press...so much bantering so little to say.

I Have yet to meet anyone as well who openly defies our mission in Afghanistan, except a few slurs about the military itself coming from unrealistic pacifists, which needless to say doesn't upset me at all. What REALLY does upset me is the lack of support (I'm sure you have read this before but it's really the biggest killer here...) to the troops themselves, by the people and the media and the opposing political parties to the current government. I will not fall into a political debate, but as I say to those people I meet,   SUPPORT THE TROOPS  It really doesn't matter if you like or voted for the government etc etc...we are there right now, we need your support for all the man and women of the forces right now! They want to know their country and loved ones are with them in heart at least.


----------



## Flip (4 Jul 2007)

> I would really love to know why it is that these media types are allowed to blather on ad infinatum in moral breaking and enemy bolstering ways, without being brought to task for it.



I've been wondering the same thing............

Our society has changed.

Multiculturalism (a good thing)  is one aspect of the change.
Many Canadians adopt a "we are the world" attitude and chuck 
nationalism out the window.  Our own political parties pander
to special interests (ethnic and social) at the expense of
Canadian NATIONAL INTEREST.  Media have become 
the de-facto opposition and gate keepers of the truth.

   
At least Americans know who they are. 

Canadians by and large, don't.


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Jul 2007)

Flip: But we're proudly united by our juvenile anti-Americanism !

Happy Independence Day,

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Jul 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> I've been wondering the same thing............
> 
> Our society has changed.
> 
> ...



So where is the "multiculturalism is a good thing" part of the rest of your post.  Or were you also missing the presence of the [sarcasm] smiley?


----------



## Flip (4 Jul 2007)

I should have expanded my thought, I guess.

I think multiculturalism is a good thing as opposed to 
ethnic nationalism.

In Canada we have expanded the basis of that idea into
antipathy toward all things anglo including our own traditions
to a degree, and substituted a misguided political correctness
that values foreign identity over Canadian identity.

Does that make any sense?  Both meanings apply.
1. Am I clear?
2. Is this such a hot idea?

What Canadian values are and what is Canada's national interest
needs to be spelled out.

Like I said, Americans seem to have no trouble with what it means
to be "American". Happy July 4 by the way......


----------



## LakeSup (5 Jul 2007)

With the latest cas fugres, we have overtaken the Brit cas count in Afgh and the press are questioning (and MGen McKenzie) why we are taking the brunt of the hard work there.  Maybe, if the other NATO countries (most) don't want to step up to the table, Canada's approach should be:  We'll stay there and do thetough job but, you must give us the money to do the job properly and safely.
ie, if they don't want to risk troops,give us part of your defence /rebuilding budget or equipment so that we can do the job, safely, for you.  This may even b beneficial for their (and our) defence industries as, as an engineer myself, I firmly believe that tchnology (and a lot of money) can defeat these bastards.  It just takes money and , I fear, THAT is the biggest heartache many Canadians have with the msn....they don't want to see our soldiers killed but, their bottom line is, they don't want their tax $ "wasted"/
OK, rant over.   NATO, start sendin your soldiers to stand beside us and rotate into the tough sectors, or send us your equipment and money and stay the hell out of our way.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Jul 2007)

Scott Taylor, one of the illuminated minds privileged to post at macleans.ca as one of the "Macleans 50", apparently believes the Taliban, or more generally the Pashtuns, are too pig-ignorant to specifically target Canadian forces.  His own words: "The very notion that they are calculating how best to splinter apart the alliance by targetting specific national contingents is absurd."

I disagree.  It is a comical and wholly unreasonable assumption that all the Taliban or all Pashtuns must be ignorant peasants and that there can be no shrewd, educated minds among their leadership.  To underestimate one's enemy is foolish.

Our 2009 decision point has been well-publicized, as have the policy stances of all parties: on the opposition benches an unambiguous desire to withdraw militarily at that time if not earlier, and on the government benches an unwillingness to continue combat operations without parliamentary and public support.  All the Taliban have to do is make sure none of the parties or the public in general changes its mind.  They don't have to risk resources in battle; they just have to keep chipping away at the body count in as cost-effective a manner as they can devise.  It has become abundantly clear that it is absolutely beyond the capability of the Taliban to militarily defeat coalition forces in Afghanistan.  It follows with near certainty that it is beyond the capability of the Taliban to defeat reconstructive forces in Afghanistan so long as the latter are protected by military forces.  And the bottom line is that reconstruction teams are a nice-to-have, not a necessity.  Wherever there is sufficient security in the world, people do their own reconstruction and get on with their own lives, no matter how austere their resources.  It is by this simple fact of life that security aid trumps developmental aid in an unsecure environment, every time.

If Canada drops out militarily, others will have to engage or increase their engagement.  For the Taliban, it is simply a matter of one brick at a time, subject only to the constraint of keeping the region as a whole politically unstable and the population uncommitted to throwing its whole weight behind the Afghan government and coalition forces.  We have basically painted a bullseye on the Canadian centre of gravity (ultimately the coalition CofG as a whole) and announced with fanfare, "Here it is".  We have given the Taliban an exact and manifestly clear reason to make killing Canadian soldiers a major goal, if not its main effort.  Those against the mission while claiming to not hold the troops responsible for our political and public leadership support the troops are now in concord with the Taliban's aims and responsible for promoting risk to our soldiers' lives.


----------



## LakeSup (6 Jul 2007)

I happened to listen to Lowell Green's radio show yesterday and he blamed the high cas count on Cdns not having hy lift hel cap due tohe Liberals.
While it is true we would be sending F Ech off on msn using hel in lieu of vehs, we still have cbt sp convoys, CIMIC, all the other types of tpt and contactthat we need to have with the locals to win their hearts and minds....all susceptible to IEDs, unfortunately.   The US inIraq  had more hel lift cap than anyone in history but the fact remains there is a lot of veh tfc req.  If we are going to rebuild the country and win hearts and minds we have to be on the gd  with the locals.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Jul 2007)

WarmAndVertical said:
			
		

> I happened to listen to Lowell Green's radio show yesterday and he blamed the high cas count on Cdns not having hy lift hel cap due tohe Liberals.
> While it is true we would be sending F Ech off on msn using hel in lieu of vehs, we still have cbt sp convoys, CIMIC, all the other types of tpt and contactthat we need to have with the locals to win their hearts and minds....all susceptible to IEDs, unfortunately.   The US inIraq  had more hel lift cap than anyone in history but the fact remains there is a lot of veh tfc req.  If we are going to rebuild the country and win hearts and minds we have to be on the gd  with the locals.



Please, brother.  Some of your points are good, but for the love of God man, use real words and the spell checker (it's free, ya know) 
Thanks, carry on.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jul 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Please, brother.  Some of your points are good, but for the love of God man, use real words and the spell checker (it's free, ya know)
> Thanks, carry on.



He's using standard military abbreviations which are immediately familiar to soldiers of my generation - good ol' _Staff Duties in the Field_!

But we should avoid most abbreviations, even the common everyday military ones, because there are so many civilians on Army.ca for whom msn, tfc and veh are are foreign as _MSN speak_ is for me.

We soldiers should also spell out acronyms on first use.


----------



## GAP (7 Jul 2007)

Yeah, it really makes for hard reading if you have to decipher what everything should mean in the context of the sentence....


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (7 Jul 2007)

More importantly, and central to WaV's original post, who is Lowell Green and why does he feel qualified to comment on operational matters?  Worse, why does he feel it necessary to use casualties to take a partisan political shot?


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jul 2007)

Lowell Green is an extremely conservative talk show host in Ottawa. Like many media commentators, he rarely lets facts interfere with his arguments. Having said that, I heard part of the show in question, and he was not playing the casualty card as such, and certainly not to the extent that Taliban Jack was.


----------



## Nemo888 (7 Jul 2007)

Lowell Green was a lefty 25 years ago. It made him popular. When public opinion changed he just followed the ratings. The man is the crassest of political opportunists. He makes the Liberals look like they have a backbone.

I vote that the war effort is undermanned/underequipped/underfunded. The public is not hearing this. We have to tell them step up and pay what it takes to succeed or we will fail. The fact is that we give a crap about the Afghani's and the public doesn't. The public cares about our image and isn't willing to pay the cost. Shame really, its such an important mission. 

P.S. The 3$ "Support the Troops" magnet is NOT ENOUGH. I wish for a Marshall plan, all in, we really do 15000 on the ground, call up the Reserves, lets git er done commitment. The cost of a half assed mission is worse than not going at all, at least in my estimation. Sometimes I wonder if the public just wanted revenge. That deep down they really couldn't give a toss about reconstruction and now that we have our pound of flesh they just want to forget the whole thing ever happened.


----------



## McG (8 Jul 2007)

If we must set an arbitrary end date, perhaps it should be after the next Afghani national elections.  Keep the fledgling democracy alive through its first round, and once its onto its second leg (hopefully with more widespread participation from all factions) let it go.

2009 for the sake of 2009 is silly.


----------



## LakeSup (8 Jul 2007)

"I vote that the war effort is undermanned/underequipped/underfunded. The public is not hearing this. We have to tell them step up and pay what it takes to succeed or we will fail. The fact is that we give a crap about the Afghani's and the public doesn't. "

Nemo  I  agree but I think it is the other NATO countries that need to step up to the table.  All NATO countries signed up to defend a country member when attacked so, if we can agree that Afgn has something to do with 9/11, then they should all be there in body or funding.  Also, the counrties there should be rotating through the differentsectors (South is the only real danger as it borders on the NW Pak territory.  I think the onus is on NATO to supply the equipment and money to support the tps willing (UK, CDA and Netherlands) to take on the hard part (left out US as they are there really on a non Nato msn, basically).  We need well equiped strength in numbers that will 
1  Massively Overpower the en , dominate the ground and be capable of training the Afgn army ..lets face it...if we show ourselves to be a dominant and powerful force, then the Afgn army will realize that they are secure with us...if we are are a small, nucleus of instructors who are continually tettering on the brink of pulling out, the Agfn will never be comitted to our side).

2. Massively commit to CIMIC and rebuilding under the security umbrella of the force in 1.

It has been said that no one has ever won a counter insurgency...I think it is because no one hasever treated a counter insurgency with th same determination of a WW2.  We need to do that in the West.

Havng said that, I don't believe it will ever happen...too many ppl are getting immensely wealthy with their Defence Industries investments the way things are going right now.


----------



## observor 69 (8 Jul 2007)

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/233617

Why military might does not always win
 TheStar.com - News - Why military might does not always win

A new study suggests that involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan might be doomed from the outset

July 08, 2007 
Andrew Chung
staff reporter

Does this sound familiar? "A war with no visible payoff against an opponent who poses no direct threat will come under increasing criticism as battle casualties rise and economic costs escalate .... "

It was written more than 30 years ago, after the end of the ill-fated Vietnam War, in one of the first analyses of battles between states and insurgents or guerrillas who are weak in military might but pumped up on resolve. Experts call them asymmetrical wars.

But, of course, it could very well have been written today, about Iraq – or about Afghanistan, where Canadian soldiers keep dying along dusty roadsides, blown up in their armoured vehicles by improvised yet powerful bombs. Six on Easter Sunday. Three more on June 20. Another six last Wednesday.

The total number of casualties since Canada joined the Afghan mission in 2001: 66 soldiers, plus one diplomat. 

Criticism is increasing. Public sentiment about the war is primarily negative, polls show. Politicians are ratcheting up their opposition. "It's the wrong mission," NDP Leader Jack Layton argued last week, insisting troops leave the war-ravaged country now. "It's not working; it's not going to accomplish the goals."

What's happening in this country is familiar among nations that carry out military interventions – and, new research shows, a prime factor in why they fail.

Since World War II, the world's most powerful nations have failed 39 per cent of the time, according to a study by Patricia Sullivan, a professor of international affairs at the University of Georgia. Despite overwhelming military superiority, mounting human and material costs compel them to pull out their troops without achieving their political aims.

Since Vietnam, researchers in the complex field of conflict studies have focused on the outcome of wars, and have looked at how even low-budget insurgents can defeat the world's greatest powers by taxing their political will to fight.

More at link.


----------



## GAP (8 Jul 2007)

one of the most telling sentences is 



> Does it mean a mission like Afghanistan has so little chance of success in the first place that we shouldn't try?
> 
> "There's nothing in a study like this that says: `Oh, well, we shouldn't engage in these things,'" says military historian Delaney. "It's: `How important is it to you? How much does it contribute to your security?'"


----------



## LakeSup (8 Jul 2007)

If this is WW3 (or 4)  then we should treat it like a world war.  The US shouldn't have 150K in Iraq, they should have 1 million and 150K!  The Principles of War and the Powell Doctrine and any professional military person will tell you about the criticality of overwhelming force.  This current madness is going to be a slow drip drip of casualties, likely 1 a week on avg for us, 3 a day for US in Iraq.  It will go up if the IEDs keep getting more sophisticated....But, if we were there in massively overwhelming force, capable of occupying towns and roads and denying all movement at night we could likely avoid most casualties.
Of course there is no political will anywhere in the West for this so the status quo will go on until the politicians get weak.  I find it odd that the people who are treated like the villains here are the ordinary Canadians who are truly saddened by our soldiers being killed and want it stopped.  The ones who are the real enemy are the ones who have the power to mobilize a truly effective military solution.  They keep spouting that this is a true clash of civilization but they would rather take a tax cut and keep sending the sons of others to do their fighting.


----------



## McG (8 Jul 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> I also think that Foreign Affairs is failing in its communications duties.  It should be that minister who is spreading the message to Canadians about why we are there, what we aim to achieve.  There is plenty of communications on how we intend to fight the enemy, but the silence related to reconstruction is deafening.  This silence is not because we are doing nothing.  This silence is not because reconstruction is unimportant (quite the  opposite; reconstruction is the most important).  The silence is because DFAIT has failed in its communication strategy.


I wonder, if DFAIT & CIDA were to take more of the lead in the governments communication efforts, would those organizations also do a better job of executing thier part of the pie?



> New initiatives needed, Afghanistan experts say
> Updated Sun. Jul. 8 2007 2:19 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070708/afghanistan_mission_070708/20070708?hub=TopStories


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Jul 2007)

A post at _The Torch_:

Afstan: Beyond wobbly
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/07/afstan-beyond-wobbly.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Jul 2007)

That seems like a smart play, though.  Everyone knows that province will be a total cluster *bleep* without some NATO country there, and since no one wants to take it over (and why would they) that is some fairly strong leverage to get some help going.  Hopefully our NATO penance for being a bit of an anchor over the last couple of decades has been paid.  

Maybe we should start an Army.ca "Name that New Operation" contest?  I'm going to put in *OPERATION ARCHON* in keeping with the Greek op names theme we seem to have going.  
And it starts with "A"!


----------



## LakeSup (15 Jul 2007)

Good article here on Brit Generals warning on Afgh and the repercussions of losing.....Pakistan could be lost to terrorists (and their nukes).

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2126817,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12

Nato needs to get serious about Aghn


----------



## JamieR (15 Jul 2007)

If the news and media would show more of what is actually done and educate the public a little more on our involvement there would be much more support


----------



## GAP (15 Jul 2007)

I don't think you are ever going to see strong support from the major, old-line EU countries. As has been stated by others in many threads, they are too busy pandering to Arab factions/countries within and outside their countries. They are standing there making noise, but not really doing anything.


----------



## LakeSup (15 Jul 2007)

I don't think you are ever going to see strong support from the major, old-line EU countries. As has been stated by others in many threads, they are too busy pandering to Arab factions/countries within and outside their countries. They are standing there making noise, but not really doing anything



Then NATO is effectively dead.  The EU countries are the ones with the most critical danger of Islamic terrorites...so if they don't care, why should we?  Or are they hoping for us to lure the terrorists to Canada, UK and Ne as we are taking the lion's share in Afgh?


----------



## GAP (15 Jul 2007)

I just think they are thinking that nothing will happen to them if they don't stir the hornets' nest....essentially our NDP position.


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Jul 2007)

A post at _The Torch_:

Afstan: Scott Taylor blows it on the "exit strategy", training ANA
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/07/afstan-scott-taylor-blows-it-on-exit.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## 3rd Herd (16 Jul 2007)

Lucky it's not 1942
In another era, Layton's conduct would've been called treason
By PETER WORTHINGTON

These days when people such as the NDP's Jack Layton urge, in the normal course of their ideology, that Canada should quit Afghanistan, it is an acceptable political viewpoint. 

But when they do so the moment Canadian troops suffer casualties, and insist their motivation is concern for the soldiers in harm's way, they are indulging in crass political opportunism. 

In another era, we would have called it treason.  

My guess is Layton, for one, doesn't give all that much thought to the welfare of our soldiers and that he neither instinctively likes them, nor understands them. Concern for their individual welfare is mere political rhetoric. He'd send our army to Darfur, for God's sake! 

Disagreeing with Canada's mission in Afghanistan, or how it is being waged, is a legitimate point of view. ..............................
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/07/16/4343140-sun.html


----------



## Sassy (16 Jul 2007)

What really really really angers me is that our troops are being used as political pawns by the Liberals and the NDP, they've done everything they can short of giving away our battle stratagy to the media. It's my assertion that they are in fact placing our troops in danger with their relentless media hoeing.  How dispicable are these political parties, they argue in public visa vie Jack simpering "Bring them home Lassy" as in dog.  Then there is ferret face Dion basically saying the same thing when he snorts and bawls "Lets re-evualate the Mission" great just great the Taliban supporters are Emailing their barbaric buddies letting them know that our Troops are getting ready to pull out.  This is not only bad for moral it's dangerous to  have this type of dialog in front of the media.  Can't these pie  holes discuss this in chamber when the majority of elected MP's make up their minds what they want then discuss the mission in the media.  For gawds sake if this were World War 11 we never would of won.  IT's disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful.


----------



## 3rd Herd (20 Jul 2007)

I read half a dozen to a dozen different newspapers a day from different countries and cultures. It is kind of nice to see what the others think or how we look to them. So here is an editorial from the China Post (Taiwan). The Usual Disclaimer:

Canada's Afghan commitment becoming a source of anguish
Friday, July 20, 2007 - By John J. Metzler, Special to The China Post

Canada is doing much of the "heavy lifting" for the multinational military mission in Afghanistan, right alongside the American and British forces. And despite little publicity, Canadian Forces are on the sharp end of a particularly bitter struggle with the resurgent Islamic radical Taliban forces. Now casualties in dusty Kandahar are taking their toll in Ottawa half a world away. The Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has come under increasing political sniping as to when the mission will be scaled back or phased out. 
Harper, to his credit, has remained firm. Canada's commitment to help rout out Taliban extremists dates to 2002, when the then Liberal government dispatched the first units to join the international military mission. Today 2,500 Canadian forces are stationed in what would probably be the equivalent of Iraq's once-lawless Anbar province, the unruly southern Kandahar region bordering Pakistan. Yet, with 22 soldiers killed this year so far, and 66 during the deployment, public support in Canada continues to erode for the deployment, which some military experts say disproportionably exposes the Canadians. Before anyone may question the relatively low losses, recall Canada's population is approximately 10 percent of the USA's.

Though the multinational mission has 35,500 troops -- half of them American -- Britain, Canada, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands are also major troop donors. Still, a scathing British parliamentary report criticized some NATO countries for not doing enough on the frontlines of combat in southern Afghanistan. 

"We remain deeply concerned that the reluctance of some NATO members to provide troops for the (International Security Assistance Force) mission is undermining NATO's credibility and also ISAF operations," stated a report of Britain's parliamentary defense committee, in a direct reference to the reluctance of some countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain to send troops where the Taliban insurgency is strongest.

Ottawa's Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay stated, "I'm glad the Brits have added their voice to this clarion call for other NATO countries to step up and to help with the burden-sharing that's going on in the south." Quoted in Toronto's National Post, MacKay said Canada would turn up the heat on fellow NATO members to do more in the "soft underbelly" of southern Afghanistan. He also dropped further hints Canada's combat role could be finished by February, 2009, when parliamentary approval runs out.

He told the National Post, "The bottom line is: the clock is ticking, and it's not just ticking on Canada and our role. That bell tolls for all. We're looking at doing our part. And I believe we've more than done our share of staring into the eyes of the enemy. Not to be dramatic about it, but if we are not able to secure that ground in the south, this is the weak underbelly of the mission."

Sending foreign troops into Afghanistan in the first place was not an easy political sell. The German public has been decidedly nervous about the deployment in the relative safe areas where 21 troops have already been killed; the Italian government almost collapsed over the 2,000-man deployment; even France's new government is of mixed opinion about the 1,000 troops in the country. Significantly, Poland has added additional troops to the equally dangerous Paktia province, Hungary sent units to Kandahar, and tiny Estonia has dispatched 100 men to Helmand province. 

"I don't see a kind of moral opposition to this mission. What I see is a growing concern of Canadians, and of the burden that we are carrying and the level of Canadian casualties," Prime Minister Stephen Harper conceded.

In recent decades, Canadian Forces have performed yeoman service in United Nations peacekeeping operations worldwide. Still, the army has not been thrust into a direct combat role since the Korean war 1950-53, during which Canada suffered heavy losses.

The Harper government has signaled that the military mission will end in February 2009 unless Parliament decides to extend the mandate, which appears unlikely. At the same time Ottawa is expanding its economic aid for Afghanistan, already one of Canada's major foreign assistance clients.

Nonetheless, Afghanistan's vulnerable frontier with Pakistan remains a hotbed of Taliban terrorism. I recall seeing Afghan President Hamid Karzai last year, where he spoke quite candidly how Pakistan has allowed these Taliban and al-Qaida militants free reign in certain border regions. Islamic radicals have targeted foreign troops with roadside bombs and have increasingly attacked Afghan civilians as a form of intimidation.

Most of the multinational forces will hold firm, but in Iraq time is of the essence. To train local army units and police is to give citizens of this ethnic quilt called Afghanistan reason for unity and hope free of the Taliban's harsh fundamentalism.http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/2007/07/21/115650/Canadas-Afghan.htm


----------



## PPCLI Guy (23 Jul 2007)

Sassy said:
			
		

> What really really really angers me is that our troops are being used as political pawns by the Liberals and the NDP,



Why stop there?


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jul 2007)

This is interesting; look at the date of the The Afghanistan Compact and then ask yourself why  the MSM or various political parties have not mentioned this at all.........

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009844



> *Afghanistan and the unbearable ignorance of our media*
> 
> Bruce Rolston at Flit points out that the NATO-UN-Afghan Government five-year strategy ("The Afghanistan Compact") includes training the Afghan National Army as a major part of the exit strategy. The plan has been publicly available since January 31, 2006; our media in their idle indolence, seem unaware, as usual, of this reality--as they are of so many other things related to Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (24 Jul 2007)

If our media was on the ball they would have reported that Majoor, but if they were that on the ball they would also have reported that ANA soldiers often don't get paid regularly. Three months without pay can make soldiers start stealing what they need. If we want "professional" ANA maybe we should first try to get them paid. 

A competent media is a double edged sword. Luckily we don't have one.


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Jul 2007)

More nonsense from Jim Travesty in the _Toronto Star_ (and he plays the Iraq card):

Change in mission brings risk
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/239097



> Here's a travel itinerary from hell. What if you bought a ticket to Afghanistan specifically to avoid Iraq only to land in a place a lot like Baghdad?
> 
> That's been a subliminal worry since Liberals joined one U.S.-led mission mostly to compensate for refusing conscription into another. Now it's surfacing with an accelerated Conservative plan to shift the Kandahar combat load to Afghans.
> 
> First reported in the Star two weeks ago, it puts new weight on Kabul's army to fight the Taliban, control poppy production as well as the porous Pakistan border and keep Hamid Karzai in power. It's a lot to ask of suspect security forces, but it's what Stephen Harper thinks voters want to hear...



Wrong, wrong, wrong--and the _Star_ wasn't the first to report it.



> MND O'Connor *over three months ago*:
> http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=c16c4155-379b-45a0-88d9-a8f40be21aac&k=25172
> 
> Canadian troops could be withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of 2010, the Minister of National Defence suggested yesterday.
> ...



And a CTV story *over two months ago*:

Canadians to train Afghan troops with exit in mind
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070515/afghan_soldiers_070515/20070515?hub=TopStories



> Canadian military personnel have officially taken over the training of Afghan National Army soldiers -- a task that will eventually become a key component of any exit strategy.
> 
> "This is essential for our eventual exit out of here," Lt.-Col. Wayne Eyre, the commander of the Operational Mentoring and Liason Team, told CTV News.
> 
> ...



Don't our journalists (and opposition politicians) pay any attention to what's going on unless it's inside Ottawa political baseball?

Even this _National Post _editorial seems unaware of exactly what's been going on (ironic in that the MND story was written by its own John Ivision):
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=d97c9df3-7d02-4b06-9f3e-60f579ef98c9



> Over the weekend, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said that Ottawa might soon shift Canada's mission in southern Afghanistan from frontline combat to a rear-guard role in which we train the Afghan National Army (ANA) to provide security on its own. We endorse such a change -- so long as this mission shift is militarily sound, and not just an effort to take heat off the Conservative government in the run up to an election. Thanks in large part to the security provided by Canadian troops in Kandahar province -- and to the sacrifices of 67 of our soldiers and diplomats -- much of the country is (by local standards) flourishing. We must be certain not to jeopardize those gains for the sake of electoral calculations here at home...



At least the _Post_ gives well-deserved recognition to Bruce Rolston of _Flit_



> Most provinces, too, have fewer combat deaths, or deaths from terrorist activity than even two years ago. The map below by blogger Bruce Rolston shows that the deaths of NATO troops are concentrated primarily in just two of the nation's provinces...



See all the maps here:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2007_07_17.html#006224

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Jul 2007)

A letter of mine in the _National Post_:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=73b984d6-3d62-4972-b4f1-7901103cefdc



> No mission shift in Afghanistan
> 
> National Post
> 
> ...



They edited out a mention of the facts in this CTV story, May 15:

Canadians to train Afghan troops with exit in mind
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070515/afghan_soldiers_070515/20070515?hub=TopStories

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Jul 2007)

A Dutch precedent?
http://www.thestar.com/Special/Afghanistan/article/239537



> Canada isn't the only country agonizing over whether to extend its troop deployment in Afghanistan or bring the soldiers home. The Netherlands is getting set to make a similar decision and it must make it sooner than Canada.
> 
> The Dutch must decide whether the 1,000 or more troops, the helicopters and the jet fighters it has in southern Afghanistan will remain beyond August 2008, when the current commitment expires.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters (25 Jul 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> I just think they are thinking that nothing will happen to them if they don't stir the hornets' nest....essentially our NDP position.



They might think they are in some kind of 'sweet spot' but I think its probably just that their populations arent interested in supporting a 'Middle East' country.  

(Yes I know its not the Middle East, but that is how it is envisaged by most of them)


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Jul 2007)

"So this is what Canada’s new international role will be: back-seat driver."

An e-mail by the Executive Director of the Conference of Defence Associations (no actual link):

Please circulate/Prière de circuler

The Conference of Defence Associations
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/english-frame.htm

would like to draw your attention to an editorial by André Pratte, published in the July 24th edition of La Presse.  The original French text may be found at this link:
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20070724/CPOPINIONS03/707240522/6757/CPOPINIONS03

In view of the importance we attach to Pratte’s powerful message, we have had this article translated into English (see below). 

M Pratte raises some very key points about the perceptions of Canada’s mission to Afghanistan, including the need for clear communication regarding the future of the mission itself.  In the same vein, the arguments now being made in the Netherlands about the future of the Dutch mission post-2008 will surely have an impact on the Canadian debate later on this year (see link below to an article by Bruce Campion-Smith that discusses the Dutch matter specifically) 

There is also a need for the government to express its intentions regarding the Canadian Forces itself.  For example, it is important to remember that even if Canada’s troops in Kandahar province are eventually to be held “in reserve” (as mentioned by Minister O’Connor earlier this week), they will still very much be a vital component  of the battle.  A strategic reserve that is mobile and carries a big punch can make a major difference between defeat and victory, particularly when an inexperienced army such as the ANA takes on the Taliban. 

M Pratte’s piece is a true “cri de coeur” for Canada’s future role in the world, particularly where he states “Si nous rejetons toute mission militaire où la victoire n'est pas à la fois instantanée et sans victimes, quel rôle voyons-nous pour nos soldats? Et pour le Canada dans le monde?" 

(If we reject any military mission in which victory is not both instantaneous and achieved without casualties, what role do we see for our soldiers? And for Canada in the world?) 

His answer is particularly noteworthy: 

“Si les Canadiens s'en tiennent à leur vision fleur bleue de la sécurité mondiale, ils choisiront de rester les bras croisés devant les génocides, les guerres civiles et les complots terroristes, tout en multipliant les voeux pieux, une tradition bien canadienne. Telle sera donc la nouvelle mission internationale du Canada: gérant d'estrade."

(If Canadians cling to their romantic vision of world security, they choose to put their hands in their pockets in the face of genocide, civil war and terrorist conspiracies, while spouting pious promises – a very Canadian tradition. So this is what Canada’s new international role will be: back-seat driver)

Although we strongly agree with M Pratte’s conclusion that a withdrawal from Afghanistan post-February 2009 will result in Canada becoming a backseat driver in international affairs, the CDA does not necessarily agree with M Pratte’s view that the mission to Afghanistan is finished.  We are of the view that given the amount of time, talent, reputation and money that Canada has invested in the mission to Afghanistan, we should be focusing on recalibrating the mission in order to achieve our goals in Afghanistan.   Effectively communicating the whys and wherefores of the Canadian mission to Afghanistan to the Canadian public must be the highest priority of the Harper government in the months ahead. 

Alain Pellerin
Colonel (ret’d)
Executive Director
613-236-1252

Bruce Campion-Smith.  “Dutch pullout from Afghanistan would sway Canadian debate”.  The Toronto Star, July 25, 2007.  Available online at:  http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/239537.

PUBLICATION:

La Presse
DATE:
2007.07.24
SECTION:
Forum
PAGE:
A14
COLUMN:	

Editorial

BYLINE:
André Pratte

Mission finished!

Canada’s soldiers have yet to reach the end of their ordeal. It’s almost certain that more of them will lose their lives, but we can already say that the Canadian Forces mission in southern Afghanistan is finished. Not accomplished; finished. That is to say, the die is cast.

The Harper government has abandoned any idea of extending it beyond February 2009. Its sole concern now is to limit the losses — political and human alike — between now and that deadline. This became obvious on Sunday during an interview the Defence Minister gave on CTV (Question Period). Gordon O’Connor predicted that in six months, the Afghan army will be responsible for most military operations in the Kandahar region with Canadian soldiers “in reserve”.

A year and a half ago, on the same program, Mr. O’Connor was asked about survey results indicating that a majority of Canadians opposed the Afghan mission. The newly appointed minister said, “This survey shows me that I have a great deal of work to do. I must begin explaining to Canadians why we are in Afghanistan and make them aware of the good work that we are doing.” Evidently Mr O’Connor’s explanations haven’t done the job, and he himself admitted his failure on Sunday: “I think in many cases, people do not understand what’s going on in Afghanistan, the needs there. And the successes that we’re having both in operations and in development.”

Misunderstanding, you think? More like incredulity. Canadians quite simply do not believe what the government says about this topic. They have the impression that the Canadian Armed Forces are fighting for nothing, that Ottawa is dancing to George Bush’s tune, that not enough resources are going to reconstruction. The facts do not support this perception, but the Harper government has not figured out how to convince people of this.

In the collapse of public support for the Afghan mission there is material to ponder. If Canadians refuse to allow their soldiers to fight alongside the Americans, under what circumstances will they ever be allowed to deploy on operations again? It’s a rare international mission in which the Americans do not play a leading role.

If UN caution is not good enough for us, from what authority will we seek a blessing to assure ourselves that an armed intervention is the right thing to do?

If we reject any military mission in which victory is not both instantaneous and achieved without casualties, what role do we see for our soldiers? And for Canada in the world?

As well as being pacifist, an attitude many consider noble, Canadian citizens seem to have become extraordinarily naïve. According to a recent survey, six of 10 Canadians want NATO to open negotiations with the Taliban to bring an end to confrontation. Negotiate with the Taliban? Mr Harper could also invite Omar bin Laden to tea at 24 Sussex Drive.

Canadian soldiers are, in a way, victims of a myth that they themselves helped build: the belief that Canada’s role in the world is that of peacekeeper. For years, we have promoted our soldiers’ participation in UN peacekeeping missions to the exclusion of all other operations. But the world changed and, with it, the missions we called peacekeeping; however, most Canadians remain content with a simplistic version of the Pearson philosophy.

It took decades to get the international community to accept that national sovereignty must not be used to cover up widespread massacres, that there is such a thing as a “responsibility to protect”. This advance was achieved in large part through the efforts of the Government of Canada (under Jean Chrétien and Lloyd Axworthy). If Canadians cling to their romantic vision of world security, they choose to put their hands in the pockets in the face of genocide, civil war and terrorist conspiracies, while spouting pious promises — a very Canadian tradition.

So this is what Canada’s new international role will be: back-seat driver.

apratte@lapresse.ca


----------



## Greymatters (26 Jul 2007)

Although I dont agree with a withdrawal in 2009 (unless some miraculous form of peace and stability is establiashed), I doubt if we would be relegated to a 'back-seat' position quite so quickly.  It would take a few years of continued lack of support to other combined operations before that perception took hold.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Jul 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Although I dont agree with a withdrawal in 2009 (unless some miraculous form of peace and stability is establiashed), I doubt if we would be relegated to a 'back-seat' position quite so quickly.  It would take a few years of continued lack of support to other combined operations before that perception took hold.



I disagree.  It is not like we are firmly ensconced in the front seat.  We are just barely climbing out of our international backseat right now and it would only take a slight push to send us right back there.


----------



## 3rd Herd (26 Jul 2007)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I disagree.  It is not like we are firmly ensconced in the front seat.  We are just barely climbing out of our international backseat right now and it would only take a slight push to send us right back there.


Agreeing with PPCLI Guy and an example is the "diplomatic coup" that Harper may win if the UAE troop deal works out. That may not get us in the driver seat again but it just may extend our time in the up front passenger seat.


----------



## Greymatters (26 Jul 2007)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I disagree.  It is not like we are firmly ensconced in the front seat.  We are just barely climbing out of our international backseat right now and it would only take a slight push to send us right back there.



When do you see us as having climbed out of the back seat? (i.e. what year or specific event)


----------



## PPCLI Guy (27 Jul 2007)

In a general sense, the spilling of blood in Astan.  More specifically, the placing of a US BG under CA comd in Aug 06.


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Jul 2007)

Afstan: Sen. Hugh Segal loses his marbles
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/07/afstan-sen-hugh-segal-loses-his-marbles.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (28 Jul 2007)

Why we should stay, from an RCMP perspective:


> Canada, busy training Afghan police, can't make hasty exit, RCMP official says
> Published: Friday, July 27, 2007 | 3:20 PM ET
> Canadian Press: MARTIN OUELLET
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jul 2007)

And there is this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today's _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070728.wafghan-grant28/BNStory/National/home


> Top general vows to tell it like it is
> 
> PAUL KORING
> 
> ...



I wish those who incessantly beat the defeatist drum would take note.  Afghanistan is not a 'good news' story.  There is a whole lot which is wrong, progress is slow to sporadic in too many regions, it is, all too often, 'two steps forward and one back' but that is the nature of this campaign.  But, there is some progress, everywhere – not as much as many, including, I suspect, most soldiers would like but as much as we can expect given the huge challenges facing Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is as poor and unfortunate as, in Canada, are rich and favoured.  Yet many, maybe even most Canadian want to abandon those poor people to the tender mercies of medieval theocrats just because we haven't made a huge, highly visible difference in a very short time.  Our celebrity obsessed, instant gratification, me, *Me, ME!* culture has, apparently broken our will to *”do the right things”* and to *”do things right*.”  Other countries, notably, the valiant and stout hearted Dutch are also wavering.  They need a *leader* to follow – a country that will do the right thing.  They need to understand that if they stay it will be as part of a well managed campaign – one which does things right.  Canada can and should play both roles: we should *lead* the way by renewing our commitment to helping the Afghans to help themselves and we should take on a greater role in managing the campaign to ensure that things are done right.  BGen Grant and RCMP Supt. David Fudge understand what some of those things are.


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Jul 2007)

Further to this comment,
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-595623.html#msg595623

this appears (with some nudging) in _Norman's Spectator_, ON MY MIND, July 28:
http://members.shaw.ca/nspector4/MIND.htm



> --What Hughie says about Afstan
> 
> Conservative senator pushes air role for Canada (Citizen)
> http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=167c7026-95e8-4adf-858c-b2e2a719e833
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (30 Jul 2007)

Others can finish Afghanistan mission, says top soldier
 TheStar.com July 29, 2007 Martin Ouellet Canadian press
Article Link

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan – Canadian troops are not the only foreign military that can complete the rebuilding effort in Afghanistan beyond 2009, a top Canadian commander said on Sunday. 

"Whether we accomplish it ourselves, or it's accomplished by others, it doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things," Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier, commander of the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, told a news conference in Kandahar.

Gauthier said the international community will need to be present in Afghanistan for several more years for the country to become self-sufficient.

The Canadian mission in Afghanistan is slated to end in February 2009. 

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he'll only extend that mandate with the consensus of Parliament, which seems unlikely. The mounting death toll – 66 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have died in Afghanistan since 2002 – has renewed the political debate back home over the mission's future, with the opposition parties pushing the government to come up with an exit strategy.

Gauthier said the situation has improved in the war-torn country, but it will require years of continued contributions from the international community.

"I don't think anybody believes the job is going to be done by February, 2009, from an international community perspective," Gauthier said. 
More on link


----------



## LakeSup (30 Jul 2007)

Pretty good news out on the Brown Bush meeting (Brown Bush?  I'm getting strangely aroused) today saying that Afgn is the Central fornt on teh WOT.  Maybe we see more help there.


----------



## JamieR (31 Jul 2007)

If we (Canada) and some others pull out , possibly even at 2009, theres no way that country can be ready to sustain itself, I dont believe the security has been built up that that country needs to hold its own against taliban. They will move in and kill what we have created. Then I will ask why have our soldiers died for this?

am I correct on this?


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (31 Jul 2007)

But then our Canadian soldiers will be safe as the anti-war protestors want it, regardless if thousands will be killed, and Afghanistan is once again returned to the stone age. As long as we in Canada just mind our own business, no one will ever want to harm us. "All we are saying is give peace a chance"..............oh sorry I really should open the garage door when working on a running motor.


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Jul 2007)

UN head in Afstan wants more NATO troops--whenever you see references to European or German attitudes and perceptions, read "Canadian". I wish the Canadian populace, pundits and politicians could see this--and I wish our government could make the case for the Afghan mission as cogently and powerfully:

'Afghanistan Needs more Western Troops'
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,497284,00.html



> German politicians are growing increasingly uncomfortable with the presence of Bundeswehr troops in Afghanistan. UN Special Representative for Afghanistan
> http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sga964.doc.htm
> 
> [and Head of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan]
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Nemo888 (31 Jul 2007)

India's take on Afghanistan.
http://www.indiaenews.com/india/20070801/63457.htm
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Afghanistan: A Losing Battle
By Rudroneel Ghosh. Delhi, India, 12:39 AM IST 


The kidnapping of 23 South Korean voluntary aid workers by the Taliban in Afghanistan’s Ghazni province once again proves that the West backed Afghan government at Kabul isn’t anywhere close to controlling the law and order situation in the country let alone trying to stamp out the remnants of the country’s ex rulers. 

The Taliban is definitely making a strong comeback and the recent kidnappings, the largest since the US backed war in 2001, is a strong evidence for the same. The NATO forces stationed in the country that are at the forefront in the fight against Taliban insurgents have been facing stiff resistance on a daily basis. Such is the situation that it won’t be a stretch to say that the Karzai government’s actual control doesn’t extend beyond the boundaries of Kabul. Whatever little presence that the government has in the outlying provinces is actually next to negligible. 

As the South Korean hostages enter their 13th day of captivity their Taliban captors have already slain two of their numbers. Last Wednesday the group killed their first hostage, pastor Bae Hyung-Kyu, who was leading the aid mission. Whereas the local police in Ghazni discovered the body of a second slain hostage today morning at daybreak. 

A Taliban spokesman speaking from an undisclosed location told the authorities that senior Taliban leaders had decided to go ahead with the killing of the second hostage as they felt that the Afghan government wasn’t being sincere to their demand of releasing Taliban prisoners. The group has demanded the release of a certain number of their comrades in exchange for the release of the Korean prisoners. 

As the Taliban forces continue to rise why hasn’t the Afghan government or their American backers done anything to stop them? Well, the truth is that they are trying but are sorely losing the battle. The reasons for the same are two fold; firstly it is quite clear that the Afghan people are bitterly disappointed with the Karzai government. The Karzai government had an excellent opportunity to build by the democratic institutions of the country and invigorate their countrymen’s faith in democracy after the fall of the Taliban. But frankly the Karzai government has squandered that opportunity and has actually managed to turn many Afghan’s away from democracy. Now the belief in Afghanistan is that democracy is not all that it is cracked up to be. The sole reason for the Afghans being put off by the present government and its promises of democracy is none other than ‘corruption’. The menace of corruption has percolated to every nook and cranny of the Afghan administrative set up. Everyone from top government officials to low-level clerks need their palms greased to accomplish the smallest of tasks. Such is the menace of corruption that some Afghans are looking back at the Taliban regime as the ‘good old days’, where no doubt there were several moral and social restrictions but at least corruption was kept in check. They say that during the Taliban days they probably had to bribe the top officials to get their work done but now they have to bribe everyone from top to bottom.

Another important factor that is intrinsically linked to the battle for Afghanistan is the issue of opium farming. Afghanistan is the largest producer of illegal opium in the world and in turn accounts for the largest source of heroine, a drug that is processed from opium poppies. After the US led war, the US and the British governments jointly launched a program to crush the opium trade coming out of Afghanistan. At the time they said that as much as 50% of the world’s heroine was Afghan in source and that the Taliban was using the profitable illegal trade to buy arms. Since then both the governments have pumped in millions of dollars every year in an effort to try and eradicate opium farming but have miserably failed to produce even a dent. On the contrary opium farming in Afghanistan has never been so profitable. Farming of opium poppies have reached unprecedented highs in spite of strong measures taken by the Karzai government such as forced eradication and destruction of poppy farms. It is said that in some remote lawless parts of the country opium is even used as a medium of exchange instead of currency. 

There is no doubt that the eradication campaign has rubbed thousands of Afghan farmers the wrong way whose dissatisfaction with the government continues to grow. They see the Afghan government as deliberately trying to destroy their livelihood and playing into the hands of the Western powers. On the other hand it is an open secret that opium farming has benefited the Taliban the most. By providing protection to the opium farmers they have virtually taken control of the opium trade coming out of Afghanistan. Since the entire trade is illegal the framers have no choice but to sell their produce to the Taliban who in turn benefit from the illegal but highly profitable heroine trade. Since the trade is profitable the farmers too are happy and they have come to look upon the Taliban as their sole protectors.

The situation as it stands is a bleak one. The Taliban is surely gaining in strength, more due to the follies of the authorities rather than on their own accord. Unless and until the Karzai government and the Western powers change their Afghanistan policy and clean up their own house and re-affirm the Afghan people’s faith in democracy, there is very little chance that they will be able hold their ground. The Taliban regime was a terrible one and the Afghan people have suffered long enough. Let’s hope that the Afghan authorities and their Western allies see the light of day and do the needful to prevent the country from going back to those dark days.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

By Rudroneel Ghosh (Staff Writer, © India eNews)


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 Aug 2007)

Interesting to see if any of the goverment corruption info ends up making its way into our MSM.


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Aug 2007)

Afghanistan – Looking Beyond February 2009 (PDF)
CDA Commentary 7—2007, July 27, 2007
By General (Ret’d) Paul Manson (former Chief of the Defence Staff, currently President of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute)
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/CDA_Commentary/7-07%20Afghanistan%20-%20Looking%20Beyond%20February%202009.pdf

Somehow I just don't see any opposition party agreeing to our continuing a substantial role at Kandahar after February 09 (even with much reduced combat); and I don't see any of the reluctant NATO members coming in to help significantly with combat on the ground.  The Afghan National Army may be a pretty decent force by then but I can't see there being no need for combat assistance from international troops.

I suppose the US and UK will have to take up most of the slack, with luck having much reduced Iraq commitments in the US case.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Aug 2007)

So instead of the battle group, it would be an OMLT-fest?  Would that work?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (15 Aug 2007)

I believe that the evolution of our tactical forces will and must be shaped by strategic pressures - and domestic ones at that.  

The bottom line is that this is a just war, and we will lose it in Toronto and Vancouver vice AStan - if we do not evolve our forces and the conduct of the campaign, the voters will not allow us to stay and get the job done.  In other words, the tactical orbat, mission, roles, and tasks needs to be set within the domestic context.  This may not be pretty - indeed it is clearly bass-ackwards - but it is so.

I see an OMLT that has a significant amount of integral Canadian combat power as the likely way ahead - folding elements of the BG into the OMLT.  This will put some teeth to the idea of an Afghan face, and will also allow us to make some ground in our domestic campaign to stay in the fight.

It will be very interesting to see how this all unfolds in the coming weeks and months.


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Aug 2007)

Staying the Course in Afghanistan
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,500291,00.html

German newspapers make the case in a forceful and clear way, unlike our government:



> The center-right _Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung_ writes:
> ...
> "Afghanistan cannot be allowed to become a beachhead from which militant Islamists and their terrorist spearheads can launch their harmfulness and totalitarian ideology into the world. The goal of winning over the 'hearts' of the Afghans may be pathetically exaggerated, but protecting Germany's security interests is not."
> 
> ...



Meanwhile back home:

Stop muddling Afghan file, Ottawa is warned
Military experts say Canadians won't be won over unless government is more open, stresses progress
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/246829

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Matt_Fisher (23 Aug 2007)

Duceppe threatens to topple gov't over Afghanistan
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070823/duceppe_afghanistan_070823/20070823?hub=TopStories

Updated Thu. Aug. 23 2007 2:48 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe says he's ready to take down Stephen Harper's Conservative government if the prime minister doesn't make a firm commitment to withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan by February 2009. 

He's also calling for an emergency debate on Canada's role in the Afghanistan once parliament resumes on Sept. 17. 

Duceppe made the call Thursday, one day after two soldiers from a Quebec regiment were killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan. The body of fallen soldier Pte. Simon Longtin also returned to Canada on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, Liberal Opposition Leader Stephane Dion agreed that Harper needs to commit once and for all to retrieving troops from Afghanistan by the February date as promised. However, he said he wasn't about to make any "threats". 

"Everybody knows there's a possibility of a ... confidence vote where the government can be defeated," he told reporters at a news conference Thursday. "I'm not saying today that's what I want."

He did say, however, that Harper needs to make that commitment now, and not during his throne speech expected in the fall. 

"It's far too late, why wait?" he said. "We need to give the (government of Afghanistan) time for replacement. It should be said now.

"We would like the prime minister to be clear with our allies, instead of entertaining this ambiguity," he continued.

The Afghan mission has been under intense scrutiny this week -- especially in Quebec where support is typically low -- as the number of Canadian casualties in the military continued to increase. 

More than 600 Quebec residents were polled for their views on the Afghan mission just before Longtin was killed and then again right after. The survey showed the approval rating for the war dropped from 35 per cent before Longtin's death to 28 per cent. 

In the first survey, 57 per cent said they disagreed with sending the Van Doos to Afghanistan. After the news of Longtin's death, that number jumped to 68 per cent.

Canada currently has more than 2,300 soldiers in Afghanistan with more than 1,100 from Quebec's Royal 22nd regiment.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (23 Aug 2007)

If we have the same Parliament in 2009, I'll be shocked.  I can't envision a situation where there isn't an election next year.  I really can't.  In fact I'm shocked we still have this one.

I'm going to say something radical here,  so get those mice over that "demote" link.

What if the Tories put forward a motion to extend the mission again,  made it a confidence vote and we had an election on this. (I'm under no illusion they'd loose)  Yes the public opinion polls are dropping in support for the war,  however most people I've spoken to who are against the war turn into ardent supporters after simply explaining why we're there,  what we're doing and how we're doing it.  It would have other benefits as well...

It would force the Liberals to take a united principled stance (something they're very good at avoiding doing).  With their current leader they'd likely be against the extention.   Leaving one party that wants to continue.  This is an issue that an election could legitimately be called with,  and a party could win on.  And before someone says "oh the Tories would loose Quebec support"  80% of the francophone I've spoken to honestly don't know why we went to Afghanistan in the first place, and think we're in Iraq. After 30 minutes of my broken french, I got to see more than 4 "antiwar" francophones put yellow ribbon magnets on their car, vowing to explain to others the mission.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Aug 2007)

Dion and Duceppe are jackasses.  Politically savvy, maybe, but jackasses.  Here, I'll paraphrase what these jerks are saying:
"WE ARE LOSING QUEBECKERS!  LET'S GET OUT NOW!"

Pansies


----------



## Sheerin (23 Aug 2007)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> If we have the same Parliament in 2009, I'll be shocked.  I can't envision a situation where there isn't an election next year.  I really can't.  In fact I'm shocked we still have this one.
> 
> I'm going to say something radical here,  so get those mice over that "demote" link.
> 
> ...




While you've had success in turning people's opinion, i really have to ask, was it lasting?  I've had similar conversations with many people who say they don't believe that Canada should be involved in hostilities in Afghanistan, that we should be doing more peacekeeping and building schools, not killing the Taliban.  After explaining my position and discussing some of the things that Canada is doing, I've been able to turn some peoples opinion.  However the change in opinion is mostly short lived.  Mostly because the people tend to be people who develop their opinions by borrowing from other people.  I'm not saying this to be rude or anything like that, rather, if you're able to change someones opinion during a simple conversation without any them doing independent research than chances are the persons original opinion wasn't firmly set, and conversely neither will their 'new found' opinions.  
To truly formulate an opinion someone has to learn as much about the topic as possible, in order to do that they have to be open to the idea of hearing different view points.  Unfortunately a political campaign is the type of forum that lends it's self that to that type of discussion.  Political campaigns are all about the 15-second sound byte and I can guarantee you that Jack Layton and the NDP's war machine have already started compiling a list of comments that specifically target those who really don't know what's going on in Afghanistan and think that we're acting as puppets of the Americans.  And when it comes to formulating opinions, most people will use the 15-second sound byte over the well thought out and presented treatise.  

As such I don't believe the Conservatives would be able to win an election - let alone a majority government - if an election were called to decide the fate of the Afghanistan mission.  
Just my $0.02


----------



## Brockvegas (23 Aug 2007)

Okay folks, I think we have all in a round-about way explained exactly what's going on with Duceppe's latest comments. He wants an election. Pure and simple. The Afghanistan mission is just a scapegoat that he thinks he can use to get leverage on the conservatives.

If the tables were turned, and the Conservatives were against the mission, with all the other parties for it, Duceppe would be screaming "Extend the mission, or I'll take down the Harper government!".

It's crooked politics, plain and simple.


----------



## punisher_6d (23 Aug 2007)

Unfortunately, the majority of the voting population in Quebec and the rest of Canada are not members of the military - some of whom may have a rather myoptic vision of events in Afghanistan.  It is these ordinary civilians that need to be convinced of the benefits of the Afghan mission.  In a place like Quebec, which historically has shown low support for this mission and Canada's involvement in other conflicts, and which more importantly holds the balance of political power in the next election, this is crucial.  Savvy politicians like Duceppe, Dion, and Layton are merely playing this card.  What is really sad to see is that it is happening so soon on the backs of three Quebec-based soldiers who have paid the ultimate price for their country.


----------



## Jaydub (23 Aug 2007)

Shameless political opportunism.


----------



## Franko (23 Aug 2007)

Abandoning the deployment that the Liberals began....instigated by Dion. How fitting.

Can't finish what they started. Cowards all.

Regards


----------



## Remius (23 Aug 2007)

The Bloc senses an opportunity.  They lost several seats last time to the PC.  Given the mood of the province, this will be an election issue that will make or break Stephen Harper.  He's already pissed off the maritimes and now Quebec will either vote Liberal or Bloc.  For the Bloc this is probably the best time to force an election.  I just wish the PC would take a firmer stance, be clear and be  more proactive at explaining the mission.


----------



## Reccesoldier (23 Aug 2007)

Brockvegas said:
			
		

> He wants an election. Pure and simple.



Bring it on.  I'm sick of being blackmailed.  An information and marketing offensive aimed directly at explaining the message and showing in graphic gory detail the differences in Afgh from today and from the darkest days of the Taliban.  

Throw money at the issue (explaining why) and make the election a long one. The Conservatives are the only party in the position to run a protracted election of propaganda.  Drown the Liberals in fiscal Red and bleed the NDP and Greens of all their Green

This is what I wrote to CTV in the comments section, I know it won't see the light of day there.


> Yes, that's what we, as honourable peace loving, rights respecting people should do.  We should abandon the people of Afghanistan and the UN mandated mission.  We should let the Taliban go back to stoning homosexuals to death and executing women by shooting them in the back of the head with an AK47 for the crime of having been raped.
> 
> Lets also ensure that girls no longer get an education and women are whipped if so much as a wrist shows beneath their burka.  Lets close all secular schools leaving only the madrases that ascribe to the very narrow dogma of the Taliban stay open.  Lets close the hospitals and make it an offence to fly a kite.
> 
> Yes, that's what we should do because peace is so important to us.  More than that though, we should do it because we are so ostrich like in our world view, because we are so self-centered and most of all we should do it because the lives of 69 Canadian volunteers are worth more than the tens of thousands of Afghani’s that were and will be killed by the Taliban should this moral cowardice come to fruition.


----------



## Flip (23 Aug 2007)

My note to CTV was a little more inflamatory.

I don't expect to see it.  ;D

What I do expect is a grass roots upswing in support for the mission.
I seriously doubt the little bump in what was sure to be a slanted poll
will last or have any real meaning.

I for one will not let any opportunity to educate pass.

Ignorance needs to be confronted with facts.


----------



## Remius (23 Aug 2007)

Flip, I don't share your confidence in the grassroots upswing.  Real information on the mission si what is needed, and from the government.  Seeing those police services and fire personnel lining the 401 is inspiring and we need more stuff like that accross the country.  But we need real action by the government about the mission.  Leaving it informally to the troops and their families will probably not cut it.  It's a start but more is needed sooner than later.


----------



## Flip (23 Aug 2007)

Crantor, I agree. The government needs to communicate on this subject and seriously!

Information is not being reported by and large. 
CBC had a good broadcast last night - more of that would help.
Mostly about CIDA and the PRT.

I didn't say the upswing in support would be a large one. 

Now that the RCR are returning we are likely to hear more in the media
about their experiences.

Hey, just a few notions..... 

By the way, who was it that supported the government during the last motion in the house?
Politicians don't always say what they mean - and they certainly don't always do what they say.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (23 Aug 2007)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Flip, I don't share your confidence in the grassroots upswing.  Real information on the mission is what is needed, and from the government.  Seeing those police services and fire personnel lining the 401 is inspiring and we need more stuff like that across the country.  But we need real action by the government about the mission.  Leaving it informally to the troops and their families will probably not cut it.  It's a start but more is needed sooner than later.



Personally,  I love the large scale showing of support.  I LOVE it.   

Unfortunately, I find that  those against the afghan mission, get more settled in their beliefs and those who are undecided tend to lean against the mission. To understand how to persuade people you need to look at their reason for being against the mission.  Most who are against the mission, honestly believe that this is Bush's war and that we have no part supporting that Jingoist.  Holding rallies does nothing to address the source of their resistance.  

Unless we get the message out about why we went there in the first place,  what we're doing, how we're doing it, why we're staying and when we'll leave Canadians will elect a government that will pull us out 2009.  There are only two ways I see, on a national scale, that level of debate, communication and changing of opinion.  One way is an election.  The other is if we get an organised grass roots effort started,  pool our reasoning's etc and everyone convinces 1 anti war person a week the necessity of supporting the Afghan government.  (We might loose the election,  we might get the reputation of being the 'Amway like cause' but at lease we can say we worked for what is right)


----------



## canadianblue (23 Aug 2007)

I think the general consensus here is that most civilians simply do not understand why we are there, and I think another problem is that they are unsure of whether or not the violence will ever end and if losing more Canadian lives is worth it. While I support the mission 100% I think that the government has to do a much better job of explaining it, and showing the good that is being done on the ground. If someone comes up to me asking about the mission, I always attempt to talk about how we are in general improving the conditions in that country, and the progress that is being made of the different fronts. 

As for the grassroots upswing, I doubt it'll happen. In fact even many European countries are seeing sliding support for the mission in Afghanistan. While this might come off as "anti-Americanism" the reason behind it is largely the general disdain towards the way the war on terror has been waged by the current president and I'd agree with them on some aspects. 

In the end though it's up to the government to tell the people what the plan is for Afghanistan, and give civilians here at home an idea of what kind of progress is being made, and when we can possibly leave Afghanistan. But I think that if Canadian's think that we'll be seeing the same level of violence five years from now they will continue to support a pullout unless being told what objectives are in place and how we plan to meet them.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (23 Aug 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Bring it on.  I'm sick of being blackmailed.  An information and marketing offensive aimed directly at explaining the message and showing in graphic gory detail the differences in Afgh from today and from the darkest days of the Taliban.
> 
> Throw money at the issue (explaining why) and make the election a long one. The Conservatives are the only party in the position to run a protracted election of propaganda.  Drown the Liberals in fiscal Red and bleed the NDP and Greens of all their Green
> 
> This is what I wrote to CTV in the comments section, I know it won't see the light of day there.



Excellent letter. Why can't the Government say these things?


----------



## Nemo888 (23 Aug 2007)

“Now that a Quebecer has died we must run away. I did not care when it was just dee Anglo’s.”  I officially hate Gilles Duceppe.


----------



## Hunteroffortune (23 Aug 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Crantor, I agree. The government needs to communicate on this subject and seriously!
> 
> Information is not being reported by and large.
> CBC had a good broadcast last night - more of that would help.
> ...



I think there is an upswing happening, read the comments at CTV, mostly supportive. The petition for changing the highway to the Highway of Heroes, was at 17,000+ signatures when I signed it. The tide is turning, PM Harper has planted a very interesting seed that has taken root. He keeps repeating it, even GW repeated it, and that's very simply that, it's Parliments decision, not just the governments decision now. So, Harper has forced the opposition to take a stand. Now, I know that's a political move, but if you were an MP, how would you vote? What if you're the MP for the Trenton area? That little seed has been growing, you see, now it will be the opposition's fault if they vote to bring our troops home, recent polls have shown that support is 50/50, so the 3 opposition parties will have to fight for 50% of the vote, and the Conservatives are all alone with the other 50%. I think only if it is a whipped vote, will it fail, so the question is, does Dion whip the vote? 

You alone make up a huge voting block, because, your families, friends and co-workers, will support the mission, think of how unions get their power, you have the same power, and you have it across Canada. 

I would like to see more military in malls, just shopping in your fatigues, let us see "heaven forbid", more troops in our cities, with their families, buying groceries or school supplies. Put a face on the troops, that will go a long way.


----------



## canadianblue (24 Aug 2007)

I think what we need is just a debate in general on where the mission is headed, and what Canada's foreign policy in general should be. If we could simply get both sides to state their case, and do it in a way that the public is completely informed I have a feeling we'll see more support for the mission. So far we haven't seen that, and most of the reports from Afghanistan have only been about Canadian soldiers dying. 

We can't expect people to simply support the mission if they have no idea what the goals are, how long we are going to be there, what progress has been made, and why this mission benefits Canada.


----------



## Shec (24 Aug 2007)

If Quebec wants to throw in the towel, go for it Gilles.  2 things though:

(1) I thought those Vandoos who unfortunately died were _Canadian_ soldiers,  not _Quebec_ soldiers,
(2) Notwithstanding that he may be an elected representative to Parliament his party does not represent the majority of Canadians , who live beyond the borders of La Belle Province;  which means that Gilles deserves less of our respect than Taliban Jack.  At least the NDP can represent Canadians Ad Mare Usque Ad Mare.   

 Therefore Gilles.  until such a time as you are able to represent the interests of all of us shut your poutine hole.


----------



## DaveTee (24 Aug 2007)

I'd agree that the government just has to spend more time promoting and speaking about the mission. Taking soldiers testimonials, footage of rebuilt towns and the like. As soon as support for the mission hits 60% all the opposition parties will be talking about how much they supported the war all along...


----------



## Jaydub (24 Aug 2007)

DaveTee said:
			
		

> I'd agree that the government just has to spend more time promoting and speaking about the mission. Taking soldiers testimonials, footage of rebuilt towns and the like. As soon as support for the mission hits 60% all the opposition parties will be talking about how much they supported the war all along...



Or maybe the testimonials of Afghanis who's life has been affected in a positve way because of our involvement.  
Show a class in a girl's school, or even somthing as simple as Afghan children flying kites, or a man exercising his right to shave.
None of this was allowed under the Taliban.


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Aug 2007)

Shec said:
			
		

> Therefore Gilles.  until such a time as you are able to represent the interests of all of us shut your poutine hole.



 :rofl:

Dammitt!  A big crunch combo looks really gross all over the monitor!

 :rofl:


----------



## kincanucks (24 Aug 2007)

Is Blah Blah the same in English and in French?


----------



## aesop081 (24 Aug 2007)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> Is Blah Blah the same in English and in French?



OUI !!!!


----------



## HollywoodHitman (25 Aug 2007)

You ever get so sick of the rhetoric that spews from the Bloc, the Lib's and the NDP that you can't form any polite sentences?

I'm there. To all of the above political parties...!*@$!%@. 

Thank you.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Aug 2007)

I'm with Flip, Hunter and Zell on this one.

I think that Harper could get his majority on this issue.

It sets him apart from the rest of the herd in a number of areas: consistency and doing the right thing, for starters; standing for his principles in the face of the opposition, the polls and the press; offering parliament a meaningful role in the decision making process.

The Liberals can't match him on any of those grounds.

As well the underlying polls demonstrate that more than 57% of Canadians generally would vote for Harper - they may not like him but they respect him enough to vote for him - even if it is, faute de mieux, for lack of a viable alternative.

Also, as the polls demonstrate, if the question is phrased correctly he could get over 80% on that issue.  

He has the war chest that the rest of the parties lack to be able to set the tone of the debate and the images to back up an effective campaign - stonings vs smiling girls in school, virtue and vice coppers whipping ankles versus civil police learning how to keep the peace, smilling villagers, Harper and MacKay visiting, new tanks and aircraft offloading at Kandahar......

It might be too much to say that he wants an election on this issue ..... on the other hand I think the opposition would be playing to his strong suit.

Even in rural Quebec - La bas, ils ne sont pas "les Rouges".  And I don't think that all Quebecers are of the cut and run type.  The CF is still drawing recruits and if 68% of Quebecers are opposed the day after Pvt Longtin was killed - that leaves 32% not opposed.  And 32% is more support than the PM got in Quebec when he won his 10 "surprise" seats.

Now income trusts or the environment.......although the environment could do with a bit of "messaging" as well.

The only poll that counts for a politician is the one on election day.  Money spent that does not contribute to that poll is money wasted.  The fact that Harper and the Tories are still where they were on election day is not a bad thing necessarily - they are still holding their core support and are better positioned than most to pick up more.

This is the electoral equivalent of double shotting your muskets and waiting until you see the whites of their eyes.  Unfortunately it doesn't do much to give you guys the warm fuzzies.


----------



## Sassy (25 Aug 2007)

Why doesn't Harper do what the liberals always do-LIE-agree to remove the troops when our mandate has expired.  Really their is no need for him to act moral, the liberals and NDP have been walking over our dead soldiers for political gains for two years.  As for Quebec Politicians that assert that Quebec soldiers are more important than those from the rest of Canada well what can one say except @!@#@$**&&^^^^&ing.  I mourn the death of all soldiers, Quebec no more or no less.  In fact it must be rather humiliating to the Vandoos to watch their politicians act like sniviling cowards.  Regarding the poll, if it were done in Montreal yes it would be in favor of removing the troops.  Montreal is just another socialist hell like Torona, they always vote against our military.   They think the Military should be used domestically to shovel snow and stuff.


----------



## canadianblue (25 Aug 2007)

I've been to Montreal and Toronto, I never found those places that terrible. As for voting against the troops, most major urban centers tend to vote to the left of the spectrum, while most rural areas tend to vote to the right.


----------



## Michael OLeary (25 Aug 2007)

Sassy said:
			
		

> Why doesn't Harper do what the liberals always do-LIE-agree to remove the troops when our mandate has expired.  Really their is no need for him to act moral, the liberals and NDP have been walking over our dead soldiers for political gains for two years.



Yup, that's exactly what we need, for the present government to throw away whatever vestige of integrity they might have. That element people were so desperately looking for not that long ago when we could have changed the name of this forum to hatethelieberals.army.ca, when nearly every thread got spun into an anti-government diatribe by those who couldn't form any other coherent thought.


----------



## Brockvegas (25 Aug 2007)

***Warning, Warning, Incoming rant***

God DAMMIT!!! I hate when politicions use military losses to further their agendas, and that is exactly what Mr. Duceppe is doing. To make things even worse is he's doing it on the backs of brave men who's families haven't even buried them yet!!! What the hell is wrong with politics in this country? How can people stand behind a person who would do this? Not to mention the fact that he is openly and publicly making threats to topple the current government! Is this not an act of treason? I agree that he absolutly has the right to criticize the government, that's part of our freedom, but there is a huge difference between criticism and threats!

I honestly believe that if Quebec were to hold a Provincial election right now, Mr. Duceppe would find himself signing forms at his local unemployment office. There is no way that any self respecting Quebecer, or any other Canadian for that matter, can agree with the course of action he is taking. In an effort to do whatever the hell he thinks he's accomplishing, he's making himself, and his party look like insensitive fools, not to mention reflecting poorly on the people of Quebec.

AAAARRRRGGGGHHH!!!!!!.............OK, I'm done........I need a smoke.


----------



## Donut (25 Aug 2007)

I don't think this has come up yet, but I've done some searching since a conversation yesterday at work.  I'd read the Afganistan Compact when it was first released, but didn't really correlate the dates of that with the dates of the change of government in Spring 2006.

The Liberals were in government through to Jan 2006, when the CPC won the election.  The handover is never instantaneous, and takes some weeks to complete.

Canada was a signatory to the Afghan Compact, the conference for which ended on Feb 1 2006(http://www.unama-afg.org/news/_londonConf/_docs/06jan30-AfghanistanCompact-Final.pdf).

If one takes a look at the actual compact, as a signatory to it, Canada has committed to Afghan development right through to end-2010,

From page 6 of the document:

International Security Forces
Through end-2010, with the support of and in close coordination with the Afghan Government, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and their respective Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) will promote security and stability in all regions of Afghanistan, including by strengthening Afghan capabilities.

So, there should be no mistaking the fact the Liberal Government of Paul Martin commited Canada to maintaining forces in Afganistan, including our PRT, through to 2011.  The 2009 date is a red-herring, and to hold ourselves only to that date is to back away from our international commitment, which was undertaken by the Liberal government.

This may be exactly what the CPC is planning, but they need to get to work on their information campaign to get these facts out to Canadians BEFORE the opposition parties can bring them down.


As well, NO OTHER NATO MEMBER has made any commitment to take over lead-nation of the Roll 3 Hospital at KAF...are we going to tell them "Too bad, we're packing up and leaving you without any surgical capacity in that part of the country?"


----------



## aesop081 (25 Aug 2007)

Brockvegas said:
			
		

> Is this not an act of treason? I agree that he absolutly has the right to criticize the government, that's part of our freedom, but there is a huge difference between criticism and threats!



No its not...its legal political process........educate yourself a bit


----------



## canadianblue (25 Aug 2007)

Once again I think everyone should cool it with the treason comments. A politician saying they are willing to topple a government over the issue of Afghanistan isn't treason, it's unfortunately the way our democracy has worked, and it has served us well since 1867. 

As much as I disagree with the approach taken by Gilles Duceppe he is still entitled to make criticisms, and if the people of his riding and his province disagree with him they will punish him come election time. Talk of treason, traitors, etc. is counter productive, and if we were to inundate the debate with it Canadian's will not be won over to support the mission.


----------



## Brockvegas (25 Aug 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No its not...its legal political process........educate yourself a bit



CDN, and Sig, I apologize. Sometimes the brain-to-tongue (or in this case, keyboard) filter gets a bit clogged, and brain-farts slip through.

It's still a shameful thing for him to do so soon after our recent losses.


----------



## canadianblue (25 Aug 2007)

Agreed, especially since it does come off as insensitive since he is only doing it now that a soldier from Quebec has been killed. As for recent losses, I think that whenever a soldier gets killed people will ask questions about what we are doing there, and what the cost will be, and whether it will be worth it. The problem is that the current government has not done a good job of answering any of these questions to the Canadian public, thus leaving very little information outside of the knowledge of combat deaths in Afghanistan for the public.


----------



## Brockvegas (25 Aug 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> The problem is that the current government has not done a good job of answering any of these questions to the Canadian public, thus leaving very little information outside of the knowledge of combat deaths in Afghanistan for the public.



I'm in 100% agreement with that statement. If the general public could only see the positive things that are going on over there, and I don't mean a 30 special every three months, but every night with the rest of the news, it would restore faith not only in the CF, but in our government as well.

How could anyone criticize a new school, or a hospital, or a police force that's actually protecting their citizens, instead of terrorizing them. Can Harper's government really be that blind to the benefits of Canadians gaining that kind of knowlege?


----------



## canadianblue (25 Aug 2007)

The problem is that the newsmedia today is based more on a if it bleeds it leads program. You see it not just in Afghanistan but in every aspect of news programs. 

Another important part that Harper has to make clear if he wants more support for the mission is that it has been approved and sanctioned by the United Nations, this is not, nor has ever been a unilateral mission akin to Iraq. Tell Canadian's what we are doing there, and why we are doing it, and give them a timeline for when Canada will eventually pullout. While I fully support helping the country getting rebuilt, and the Taliban getting rooted out, I think their has to be a point in time when the Afghans can take over and protect their own country without help from us. 

As for the post which stated Harper should lie about the war in order to get a majority and continue with it. I can't even come up with the appropriate words to say how absolutely immoral that is. That's more immoral then Jack Layton calling for a pullout, because at the very least he would have been truthful to the Canadian public. I don't think it is ever appropriate for a government to mislead people in such a way, their would be an uproar over it, and I think that a large portion of Conservative MP's would end up leaving. I'm not even close to being a conservative, however I have enough respect and trust of Harper to know that he wouldn't lie to the Canadian public in such a manner.


----------



## punisher_6d (25 Aug 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> The problem is that the newsmedia today is based more on a if it bleeds it leads program. You see it not just in Afghanistan but in every aspect of news programs.



I have to politely disagree.  Human deaths in any form wherever they occur are in fact "news."  One thing you can give the Canadian media credit for is the fact that they cover the repatriation of Canadian soldiers extensively from the solemn ramp ceremony at KAF to the heart-wrenching arrival to their families at CFB Trenton.  You don't see that in too many countries, and the Canadian military is one of the few that allows this access at the wishes of the next-of-kin.  This coverage is important for ordinary Canadians to see and further emphasizes the importance of the mission and the sacrifices Canadian soldiers are making on behalf of the nation.


----------



## canadianblue (25 Aug 2007)

Good point.


----------



## RangerRay (25 Aug 2007)

With the most recent Iposo-Reid poll showing 51% in favour of the mission with the high casualty figures, I think the Opposition may shoot themselves in the foot playing up their opposition to the war.

Having said that, I am wary about an election campaign focusing on this as the overriding issue.  15 second sound bites win elections, which is not enough time to sufficiently communicate why we should be in Afghanistan.  You can convey "feelings" and "emotions" in 15 seconds, but it is harder to convey logic in such a short time.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (25 Aug 2007)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> With the most recent Iposo-Reid poll showing 51% in favour of the mission with the high casualty figures, I think the Opposition may shoot themselves in the foot playing up their opposition to the war.



That 51% isn't spread evenly throughout the support for different political parties.  Ie 51% of NDP/liberal potential supporters don't support the war.  The ndp wanted to steal Liberal votes by being the only national party against the war.  Last election their "lend us your vote" campain was successful.  The Liberals are being eaten into on both sides,  people who are socially/morally/economically left of center,  who also support the war have to grind their teeth and choose between politicians that are in line with their own political stripes and politicians who will help to do what needs to be done.

The best that the liberal party can do is to hopethat they can fend off the attacks from both sides by refusing to make a unified stance - which in an election,  they can't do (not without looking like they have no principles or strong leadership).  It looks like they have decided that the NDP can take away more votes that the Tories on this issue - this will cost the dearly in at least 5 riding's where the ndp are a non factor.  

If an election comes,  this issue will be a very major factor.  It is one of the few that clearly separates the political parties.


----------



## canadianblue (25 Aug 2007)

I think that if any election comes up they should give atleast 15 minutes of the debate dedicated to the issue of Afghanistan. Their are a number of ways to get that information out whether it be canvassing, townhalls, e-mails, etc. 



> The Liberals are being eaten into on both sides,  people who are socially/morally/economically left of center,  who also support the war have to grind their teeth and choose between politicians that are in line with their own political stripes and politicians who will help to do what needs to be done.



You just described me perfectly, left of center, however very few parties speak for me on that issue. If this was a direct democracy I would definitely vote in favour of the mission, but when an election comes I feel that I have to take into account all of the issues not just one with our current parliamentary system. You'll find that even in the NDP their are differences of opinion on Afghanistan, and some differences of opinion in the Liberal's. This is what we know for sure:

The NDP have been opposed to the mission since day on, and will remain opposed to the mission in the foreseeable future. 
The Liberals originally supported the mission, then opposed the mission once new leadership came into play. 
The Conservatives have always supported the mission, and will continue to do so as long as parliament permits. 
The Bloc is opposed to the mission, more or less due to the fact their are high levels of dissaproval with the mission as compared to the rest of Canada. 
The Green's are irrelevant at the time being until they get an MP elected. 

I exempted the Bloc since they are not a nationwide party. 

I think another reason why the Bloc is more outspoken now than before may be due to the byelections coming up. Currently their is apparently a tight byelection in a riding in Montreal where the NDP could come out on top. According to some poll's Jack Layton is considered the best federal leader by residents in Montreal. With Quebec provincially going back to divisions based on the right and the left with the Liberals [center left] taking government and ADQ [center right] the opposition, the Bloc is fearing they could start losing their social democratic/democratic socialist vote to the New Democrats, while the rural conservative vote will seep away to Harper in the next election.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Aug 2007)

The big problem (as many people have noted) is the government of the day is not articulating the what and why of our mission in Afghanistan. Besides the humanitarian work (building schools, medical clinics, microfinance of business, rehabilitating agricultural and other infrastructure), there are some compelling strategic resons for being there:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/65224/post-605332.html#msg605332



> Afghanistan, on the other hand, is bracketed by Iran, the 'Stans, China, India and Pakistan, and the 'Stans are part of Russia's "Near Beyond". Ripple effects in Afghanistan impact directly on 3 nuclear powers, one potential nuclear power and indirectly on yet another. Afghanistan also sits near the seams of several of Huntington's "Civilizations", several sects of Islam, and over two billion people between China and India alone. Just based on those factors, devoting resources to Afghanistan has a far higher ROI than any amount of resources devoted to Darfur.
> 
> We need to make choices, and the choices we make need to be based on logic and reason. While genocide is terrible wherever it occurs, the highest priorities lie with looking after our own interests first and foremost, and stabilizing a pivot point between hostile and nuclear armed civilizations should certainly take a far higher priority than almost anything else.



While navel gazing seems to be Canada's national sport, we are a wealthy and capable middle power, and we do have the resources to take action both here and abroad to safeguard our interests and further the prosperity and security of ourselves and our allies. Ruxted has characterized this division as "Little Canada" ("sorry sport, but we don't want to dirty our hands") and resuming our place in the world as the Leading Middle Power; the vision of Louis St Laurent (a Liberal Prime Minister back in the days that had a real meaning).

If Mr Duceppe, Dion or Layton want to argue that we are indeed a weak and cowardly "Little Canada", then we should step up and proclaim we are proud of our ability to take action as the representatives of the Leading Middle Power, and anything less is unworthy of ourselves, our nation and our history.


----------



## DBA (25 Aug 2007)

Punisher_6D said:
			
		

> I have to politely disagree.  Human deaths in any form wherever they occur are in fact "news."  One thing you can give the Canadian media credit for is the fact that they cover the repatriation of Canadian soldiers extensively from the solemn ramp ceremony at KAF to the heart-wrenching arrival to their families at CFB Trenton.  You don't see that in too many countries, and the Canadian military is one of the few that allows this access at the wishes of the next-of-kin.  This coverage is important for ordinary Canadians to see and further emphasizes the importance of the mission and the sacrifices Canadian soldiers are making on behalf of the nation.



I think the point that was trying to be made was if a large percentage of stories reported are for their attention grabbing and popular interest potential it can leave people with a poor understanding of things beyond superficial facts and soundbites. It's the much talked about shift from news that informs to news that entertains. That politicians exploit this shallow understanding is to be expected in an adversarial election system.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (26 Aug 2007)

I think Mr. Harper has a few tricks up his sleeve for Dion and the "poutine eating Duceppe" come the recommencement of the house in the fall. I'd be very surprised if he didn't have a few surprises in store for our two house clowns in his throne speech.

I think what you may see is Dion and Duceppe being served up very cold plates of poutine. Once this happens taliban jack will be left with no other recourse but to bite his tongue, in fear of getting some of the same and being labeled as the court jester.

Tune in it may get lively


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (26 Aug 2007)

.... I like Poutiene,   why are you using it the same way I'd use a disparaging term for some of my bodily waste? 

I just ran into a friend of mine,  he's works for the NDP's campain (back in Toronto for the provincial election).  Anti-afghanistan mission sentiment isn't as entrenched as one might think.  After 45 minutes I got him from "Canada has no interest in that region,  we have nothing to gain so we should go" to agreeing that 1) we had to go 2) we have clear obtainable objectives 3) when we reach those objectives it will automatically trigger a withdraw 4) we are making good progress towards those goals and 5) we have a moral obligation to help.

If I am able to take a foaming at the mouth NDP campaign organiser and turn him 180 degrees on an issue with 45 minutes of discussion, I'm sure a mass Media campain can be made that can sway the swing demographics.  We do have the harder case to make, but this is a just cause.

I've never heard ANYTHING  from a thorn speech that would cause the opposition to fear criticising the sitting government - it is kinda how our system works.  Besides ... have you seen Layton during the debates?  Like those annoying yappy dogs that you just want to kick to shut them up but you can't because you'd kill it.  Add to that ... his blooming flower in french speech ...  ^-^


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (26 Aug 2007)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> .... I like Poutiene,   why are you using it the same way I'd use a disparaging term for some of my bodily waste?
> 
> I just ran into a friend of mine,  he's works for the NDP's campain (back in Toronto for the provincial election).  Anti-afghanistan mission sentiment isn't as entrenched as one might think.  After 45 minutes I got him from "Canada has no interest in that region,  we have nothing to gain so we should go" to agreeing that 1) we had to go 2) we have clear obtainable objectives 3) when we reach those objectives it will automatically trigger a withdraw 4) we are making good progress towards those goals and 5) we have a moral obligation to help.
> 
> ...




Agree with everything except the poutine....yuck!
I was at the Peacekeepers banquet on 9 Aug here in Dartmouth (doing my Padre thing...prayers, grace etc) and the guest speaker was Peter Stoffer, NDP and MP for Sackville. Peter is 100% behind our troops and understands the mission....his boss J. Layton does not like him very much but Peter is a solid guy and he has solid support in this riding and will continue to win it for the NDP. why ? because he supports troops and veterans and I believe is in politics because he believes in Canada and not just there for himself. He is in the wrong party in my humble opinion and I told him so...he laughed and told me I wasn't the first to say that.
short answer....support for the mission is present across the spectrum of the political process....it needs to be explained better by our present government to bolster this support and they need to stop wallowing in this "Canada's New Government" crap...hey I'm a party supporter and it's wearing thin....and start being a mature government who is confident in who they are and not in the fact that they are not the other fellows.
With that I'm off to chapel to pray for the whole dang bunch of them>>>


----------



## punisher_6d (26 Aug 2007)

DBA said:
			
		

> I think the point that was trying to be made was if a large percentage of stories reported are for their attention grabbing and popular interest potential it can leave people with a poor understanding of things beyond superficial facts and soundbites. It's the much talked about shift from news that informs to news that entertains. That politicians exploit this shallow understanding is to be expected in an adversarial election system.



True; however, I don’t believe this is the case when it comes to the media reporting stories about Afghanistan and what our troops are doing over there.  The Canadian media (and certain reporters) are doing a very admirable job in reporting from the front lines of the conflict, ensuring the soldier’s stories are told and seen by the masses back home.  That’s more than a lot of other countries can say.  

I think the problem in clearly articulating the mission to the Canadian public at large is the responsibility of the politicians and the military brass themselves.  I’ve attended a few of the Red Rally’s and what I hear is the same rhetoric, scripted lines and sound bites.  Reporters are not stupid people and they latch-on pretty quick if they feel they are being fed the party line.  Rosie DiManno in yesterday’s star had a rather well-balanced account of the recent Red Rally in Toronto: http://www.thestar.com/article/249751  It’s an interesting read and exposes the reality and dangers of trying to sway public opinion for the mission this way.

Politicians and the military need to convince the media to report on the good that our troops are doing in Afghanistan – and they are doing A LOT of good over there.  One way to do this would be to give up-dated media briefings on the situation and progress there on the ground weekly (I believe these are already in the works and it’s about time it happened.)  

Another would be for politicians to step up to the plate and stress the importance of the mission during times of crisis and tragedy.  I realize with the recent cabinet shuffle some of the ‘new’ ministers may have been caught off their feet with the untimely deaths of three members of the Vandoo BG, but really, the politicians should be the ones in front of the glare of TV cameras not some poor LCol left to explain to the Canadian public why these soldiers did not die in vain.  

Thirdly, would be for the military to sell to the general populace the benefits of the reconstruction efforts that our troops are engaged in in Afghanistan.  It’s the good news that Canadians want to hear.  To do this the military needs to ‘channel’ the embedded media to go along with the PRT, medics and others who are helping the Afghan people rebuild their lives.  Of course this can be extremely difficult to do since many newly-arrived reporters to Afghanistan only want to cover the ‘sexy’ combat missions – the reality, dangers and tragedy of which played themselves out in graphic detail in newspapers and television screens this past week ……. 

My two Afghani’s worth.


----------



## canadianblue (26 Aug 2007)

In reference to what In Hoc Signo said, you'll find varying levels of support in all parties right now, even the NDP. However when explaining the mission to people it would be for the best if it wasn't ramped up with some of the rhetoric which has become a staple on some threads. The best way to win people over is through intelligent discussion, and coherent arguments. Whenever people ask me about the mission I always ensure that I talk about the kind of progress we're making, and the consequences if we did an immediate pullout.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Aug 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I was at the Peacekeepers banquet on 9 Aug here in Dartmouth (doing my Padre thing...prayers, grace etc) and the guest speaker was Peter Stoffer, NDP and MP for Sackville. Peter is 100% behind our troops and understands the mission....his boss J. Layton does not like him very much but Peter is a solid guy and he has solid support in this riding and will continue to win it for the NDP. why ? because he supports troops and veterans and I believe is in politics because he believes in Canada and not just there for himself. He is in the wrong party in my humble opinion and I told him so...he laughed and told me I wasn't the first to say that.


I like Peter Stoffer (from what I've read about him).  He represents, in my opinion, the core traditional values of the NDP, who have gone from a social-action platform ("social credit?") to a full left wing wacko organisation.


----------



## punisher_6d (26 Aug 2007)

Interesting (read the chai leaves here) .......  

This coming from Dion:

"_He said he was not interested in bringing down the government if the Tories don't commit to pulling the troops out of a combat role in the throne speech. 

"I'm really reluctant to start this discussion in saying 'I want this government to be down,'" said Dion. "That's not what I want, I want the government to do the right thing."_ "

*Harper needs to commit to troop pullout date*: Dion

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070826/dion_qp_070826/20070826?hub=TopStories


----------



## canadianblue (26 Aug 2007)

I'm not sure what you mean by "social credit", social credit was by no means left wing, and I don't think they have ever been considered progressive. My grandfather was a Socred MLA in Alberta and the party was firmly conservative both in the fiscal and social sense. The NDP however has traditionally had strong ties to organized labour, the social gospel movement, agrarian populism, etc. I'm not sure what their policy towards defence was while under leaders such as Ed Broadbent [military experience with the RCAF], Stephen Lewis, and Tommy Douglas. At one time during the 80's the NDP was actually first in the poll's, and many Canadian's preferred Ed Broadbent as Prime Minister over John Turner and Brian Mulroney.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Aug 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean by "social credit",


I put the "?" after "social credit" because I can't remember what the NDP was before they were "new".


----------



## RangerRay (26 Aug 2007)

I do remember that under Broadbent in the 1980's, the NDP was solidly for Canada to leave NATO.  I also remember thinking that they were slightly to the right of the Communist Party.

As for Taliban Jack, I am sure that he is well aware of the real situation in Afghanistan.  However for political purposes, he chooses to ignore that reality in order to get the left-wing Liberal vote.  I think that he is attempting to make the NDP "the" leftist party of Canada by trying to get the support of those who hold very left-wing views, yet usually vote Liberal.  He does not appear to be interested in courting the centralist Tory/Grit voter.


----------



## RangerRay (26 Aug 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> I put the "?" after "social credit" because I can't remember what the NDP was before they were "new".



Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF)?


----------



## McG (29 Aug 2007)

Canada has pledged to support the Afghan Compact.  As opposed to dithering while the opposition plays political football around 2009, our government should be loudly making its case to extend for another 24 months.  Why?  Because, Feb 2011 will ensure we play our bit for the duration of the international community's commitment to Afghanistan (a commitment we endorsed) to support until the end of 2010.  It will also give us a handfull of months to wind down & hand-off to Afghan forces.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (29 Aug 2007)

How utterly modern-Canadian.  We finally have a mission where we can change things, and the pressure is on to leave the job unfinished, and let it all go for naught.   It is like liberating Holland, and fighting through the Schelt, and then saying, home by Christmas. Hope the Germans learned their lessons and don't take it all back once we pull out. 
Our grandfathers had the balls to stay the course before.  From failing hands they passed us the torch.  Too bad the media is calling for a fire ban.


----------



## Donut (29 Aug 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> Canada has pledged to support the Afghan Compact.




Hmmm, where did I see that before...

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-607192.html#msg607192    8)

+1, ModlrMike


----------



## George Wallace (29 Aug 2007)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> How utterly modern-Canadian.  We finally have a mission where we can change things, and the pressure is on to leave the job unfinished, and let it all go for naught.   It is like liberating Holland, and fighting through the Schelt, and then saying, home by Christmas. Hope the Germans learned their lessons and don't take it all back once we pull out.
> Our grandfathers had the balls to stay the course before.  From failing hands they passed us the torch.  Too bad the media is calling for a fire ban.



Sometimes it makes you wonder if we should change that statement to read: "To failing hands they passed us the torch."  It really is frustrating at times.


----------



## Brockvegas (29 Aug 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sometimes it makes you wonder if we should change that statement to read: "To failing hands they passed us the torch."  It really is frustrating at times.



Agreed, but it's not the hands that recieve the torch that are failing, but those who are coaching the team.


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Aug 2007)

The circle is squared:
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Afghan/2007/08/28/4451303-sun.html



> Liberal MP and defence critic Denis Coderre rejected the view that the Afghan mission is a bust.
> 
> "The Conservative approach regarding Afghanistan is a failure, but the mission itself is not a failure. It is noble," he said...



Why do not the media and the government ask M. Duceppe how the "Conservative approach" differs from the Liberal one when the Martin government committed the CF to Kandahar in 2005?  

Meanwhile this appears in the _Globe's_ Report on Business (B7); pity that it's not in the main news section where a lot more readers might see it and get some appreciation of what really is going on in much of Afstan:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070829.IBAFGHAN29/TPStory/TPInternational/Asia/



> Associated Press
> 
> August 29, 2007
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman (29 Aug 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> I put the "?" after "social credit" because* I can't remember what the NDP was before they were "new".*


 Canadian Communist Party (Marxist-Leninst) and Union of University Professors and Main-Stream Media, Local 2652
 -- NDP was easier for the pseudo-intellectual to remember.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Aug 2007)

Mark, the growth of the mobile market is one of the solid indicators that Afghanistan is well on its way to developing into a dynamic member of the international community.  I would see Afghans with 2 or 3 cell phones (one for each provider -- roaming charges are very high compared to having a second or third phone, believe it or not) and the latest songs downloaded as mp3 ring tones was also an indication of status for the user (most recent release from Peshawar or Islamabad was a big thing) -- people would actually let their phones ring for some time so that others the "happen to hear" that the user was "connected and cool".  Once technology gets hold not only as a tool but as a status symbol, the train is out of the station!

G2G


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Aug 2007)

Andrew Coyne tells the truth about opposition positions on Afstan--though I suspect he's too optimistic about Canadians generally:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=0a59f5fa-994c-4676-8355-5bd7d814c2ed&p=1



> Let us now give thanks for Gilles Duceppe. Let us erect statues to his memory. Let school children across the country recite poems in his honour. For the Bloc Quebecois leader, though he certainly did not intend it, may have single-handedly saved the Afghanistan mission, and with it Canada's reputation as a reliable ally...
> 
> ...Mr. Duceppe's statement last week, demanding that the Prime Minister state explicitly, in what is expected to be a new Speech from the Throne this fall, that Canadian troops will be withdrawn from combat at the expiry of the current mission, or face defeat in a confidence vote, has achieved several things...
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Flip (29 Aug 2007)

Mark, It could be the beginning of a change.



> Second, with his customary subtlety and exquisite sense of timing, Mr. Duceppe has made hash of the opposition's careful public relations strategy: the statement came one day after two soldiers from Quebec were killed in an explosion (another had been killed a few days before), a connection Mr. Duceppe made no attempt to deny. If there is a more precise definition of cutting and running --Casualties? Get us out of here



Sometimes it's best to let the opposition try their gambit.
Let them blow themselves out.
Let them get in each others' way 

Even some members of the media are saying "wait a minute".
The Bloc and the NDP are taking their position to an absurd
level, forcing the liberals to defend the mission.

Duceppes' timing is wonderful.
I will make the sad prediction that Quebec will lose more citizens 
this coming weekend in traffic and there will be no call for a 
policy change after that.

I don't mean to minimize the 3 deaths in discussion - just
Duceppes' reaction to them.  

Perhaps Canadians should withdraw from cottage country after labour day?

Perhaps what Mr Duceppe is reacting to, is that the three died doing 
something of value to Canada.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (31 Aug 2007)

Here's a bit of curiosity.
A collegue of mine recently had some good chat time with a Liberal backbencher, and let them know that the Liberals are pretty much looking like mouthpieces of the Taliban Jack insurrection.  The MP was stunned at this (and it was felt that the reaction was genuine), and had no idea that the message that was being put across was being recieved so poorly.  They also indicated that many Liberals are actually CF supporters (my fingers are blistering right now  ) and are not in agreement with where their "_leader_" is taking them.  
Perhaps instead of blasting the Liberals, a good healthy round of complaint letters and meetings from their own voters might carry some more weight.  There is a possibility that beyond the city limits of Ottawa they actually might not realize that they are shitting the bed on this one.
Guh.  I think I need a shower now.  Where's my cilice?


----------



## Brockvegas (31 Aug 2007)

That hurt didn't it?  

Don't get me wrong, I harbor no secret love for the Liberals...or any other party for that matter. Maybe this could be a good thing (_shudder)_ for us come time to discuss extending the mission in Afghanistan past Feb/09. If your colleague's experience holds true of other Liberal MP's, we may have more votes on the side that realizes *we're not finished over there yet* than we thought....


----------



## zipperhead_cop (31 Aug 2007)

I'd just like to see them stop using the mission as a political wedge to shamelessly try to draw some sort of support from fear mongering.  All the parties can fight each other tooth and nail, scream about absurdities in the papers and act like oxygen deprived toddlers during Question Period on pretty much any other topic for all I care.  But leave the CF out of the realm of politics.  They are hurting real people in Afghanistan by screwing with a righteous mission, and putting our men and women at risk by emboldening the enemy with their defeatist talk.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (31 Aug 2007)

I've given this thread a quick sweep,  I don't know if anyone has brought up the report to Parliament on the progress in Afghanistan.
http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/afghanistan/docs/260207_Report_E.pdf (En francais: http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/afghanistan/docs/260207_Report_F.pdf )

In fact I've found tonnes of usefull information at http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/afghanistan/menu-en.aspx  If this is a duplicate post, I apologise - I'm just posting this here because I finally swayed an acquaintance of mine,  who works for the NDP, using the very facts found in the report to Parliament.  (I know it is a few months old,  but still usefull)


----------



## Greymatters (31 Aug 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> But leave the CF out of the realm of politics.  They are hurting real people in Afghanistan by screwing with a righteous mission, and putting our men and women at risk by emboldening the enemy with their defeatist talk.



Nothing is sacred in politics...


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Aug 2007)

A retired Army Colonel with SAT experience is Kabul furthers some thoughts expressed by UK former Liberal Democratic leader Paddy Ashdowne

Are NATO (and the UN) failing in Afstan?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/07/are-nato-and-un-failing-in-afghanistan.html

And the UK and US defence secretaries (I wonder if Canadian diplomacy is engaged along these lines):

Afstan: Overall coordination of various types of activities
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/afstan-overall-coordination-of-varous.html

In Afghanistan, the poppies are just a symptom
MIKE CAPSTICK, _Globe and Mail_, August 30
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070829.wcomment0830/BNStory/Afghanistan/home/



> The United Nations Office of Drug and Crime's annual report on poppy cultivation has unleashed critics of the Afghan mission, with interest groups renewing calls for opium commercialization and licensing and columnists and commentators declaring the mission to be "hopeless." Coupled with recent casualties, the report has led many to declare Afghanistan beyond help. Canadian opposition leaders have threatened to topple the government unless it goes firm on a February, 2009, withdrawal date.
> 
> All of this means one thing: The Taliban strategy is working.
> 
> ...



"Comments" are still open.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070829.wcomment0830/CommentStory/Afghanistan/home

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (3 Sep 2007)

Leaving Afghanistan is no answer  
By ED FEUER September 3, 2007 
Article Link

As opposition politicians scramble to score political points on Afghanistan, Stephane Dion's position bears the most scrutiny because his party has the only chance of replacing the government. 

On the Liberal party website, we read: "In the face of a mounting insurgency in Afghanistan, and with fading support from our NATO partners, our troops are facing an increasingly difficult mission. We owe it to our soldiers to develop a strategy that will achieve real results in establishing a lasting peace." 

But last week Dion said: "I want the prime minister to say right away that we are out of the combat mission in February 2009." 

If the Liberals think that'll bring "real results," they really should update their website. 

Dion says Canadians could do development and humanitarian work or help train Afghan soldiers and "provide security in certain provinces" -- in other words like what some European NATO countries do in the so-far safer zones. 

While that line might work with focus groups, there is no development without security. Australian counter-insurgency expert David Kilcullen, now an adviser to U.S. Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq, hit the nail on the head. 

A Dec. 18, 2006, New Yorker article says Kilcullen met senior European officers with the NATO force in Afghanistan applying "a development model to counterinsurgency," hoping that gratitude for good work would do the trick. "The gratitude effect," Kilcullen said, "will last until the sun goes down and the insurgents show up and say, 'You're on our side, aren't you? Otherwise, we're going to kill you.'" 

That harsh reality is why Retired Maj.-Gen. Lewis Mackenzie recently called for at least another 10,000 NATO combat troops in the south. 

More on link


----------



## foo32 (3 Sep 2007)

I don't think the opposition parties give a damn what happens in Afghanistan, or ever did. I think the Liberals sent the CF there because it was politically expedient, and now their only interest is what angle will "play the best" with the Canadian public in the next election. Statements like those coming from Dion just make me more cynical.  What really ticks me off, is that I don't see pulling out of the Afghanistan mission as being a big issue with the Canadian public, compared to say, environmental issues.  But our illustrious leaders are clearly going to try to make it one, so they can score cheap political points.

I could respect either the choice to stay or the choice to pull out,  if I really believed the decision was being made with some rational justification, and not just pathetic political maneuvering.


----------



## Flip (3 Sep 2007)

Of course it's ALL about politics at this point.

But someone needs to remind Dion of three things.

1. Huffing and puffing in public about withdrawl actually helps the bad guys.

2. Withdrawl is no way to achieve peace. 
If enough of the coalition withdraws, Dion has achieved civil war.

3. Crying "we don't like this job" is no way to get someone to take it over for us.


----------



## GAP (6 Sep 2007)

Afghan mission about goals, not deadlines: NATO
Updated Thu. Sep. 6 2007 3:12 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

The mission in Afghanistan does not have a fixed end date, says a top NATO official, who says the goal is for Afghans to take over their own security.

"We have a requirement to ultimately help the Afghans develop those security forces and security mechanisms that will allow them to take those matters into their own hands," Canadian Gen. Ray Henault, chair of NATO's military committee, told a news conference in Ottawa on Thursday.

"There isn't a date you can set on that. It's an 'end state.'"

Henault acknowledged that Canada is only committed to its present mission in Kandahar province until February 2009.

The fate of that mission is the source of significant political controversy. Even the government is hinting that the current mission, involving about 2,500 troops, won't continue in its current configuration.

"A lot of things happen in 18 months," Henault said. "We're certainly hopeful Canada will find a way to continue to operate in Afghanistan."

The general also noted that the Netherlands are also engaging in debate about whether to maintain a combat presence in Afghanistan. Dutch troops currently operate in Uruzgan province, immediately north of Kandahar province.

"The Dutch have been marvellous ... they have done some great work," he said.

More on link


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Sep 2007)

Some useful facts in the article

The Taliban Lose One To The School Teachers
June 11, 2007: One of the most powerful counter-terrorism tools in Afghanistan has been education, especially of children. Afghanistan has long had the highest illiteracy rate in Asia, especially among women. A large part of this was cultural. Many of the Pushtun tribes in the south had a tradition of keeping women at home, not even allowing the girls out to go to school. This has been changing slowly, especially among the wealthier Pushtuns, and those who had moved to cities. But millions of Pushtun in the countryside clung to the old ways. It was from this group that the Taliban got, and still gets, most of its support. But to put it all into perspective, note that, since the Taliban fell six years ago, the number of children in schools has gone from 900,000 to over six million. Only about 35 percent of the students are girls. In the Pushtun south, the Taliban used violence against schools for girls, and in many areas, schools in general (because the Taliban only accept religious schools, that concentrate on studying the Koran). Thus in 2006, the Taliban shut down 537 schools (including 187 destroyed), and killed 85 students and teachers. But that was only 6.4 percent of the 8,400 schools in the country. Moreover, the lower number of girls in school is largely a matter of limited resources. Only about half the eligible children are going to school, and the boys are given preference, because they will be the main earners for families. 


Since 2001, the number of teachers has gone from 21,000 to 143,000, and the number of schools from 3,400 to 8,400. Under Taliban rule, there were 265 students and six teachers per school. The quality of instruction was low, and concentrated on memorizing passages from the Koran. Today, there are 714 students and 17 teachers per school, and secular subjects predominate. The shortage of teachers is largely the result of there being few college educated  Afghans. 



The Taliban attacks on schools last year was very unpopular among the parents of the children affected. In most southern villages, the adults are divided on the issue of secular education, and sending girls to school. The Taliban used a lot of threats, and that got 350 schools closed. Where the threats did not work, violence was used, and that caused a backlash that even the Taliban could not avoid noticing. So this year, the schools have been largely left alone, and the Taliban are talking about establishing more religious schools. The Taliban are also pressuring the government to include more religious instruction in all schools, something the government is trying to accommodate. 



The Taliban has good reason to fear secular education, for past experience has shown that it diminishes enthusiasm for the old customs, and Islamic conservatism. The Taliban has been unable to stop the spread of education, even in their own heartland. That, more than failed military operations and terror attacks, has been the defeat that has done the most damage.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20070611.aspx


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Sep 2007)

Why do I think the MSM will give this a pass?


----------



## foo32 (7 Sep 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Thus in 2006, the Taliban shut down 537 schools (including 187 destroyed), and killed 85 students and teachers. But that was only 6.4 percent of the 8,400 schools in the country. Moreover, the lower number of girls in school is largely a matter of limited resources. Only



"Only 6.4%". That's putting the best face on it I guess, but I don't think I'd like my chances if you factored in, say, 10 years of school.  As to the girls, I wish we could teach the them to shoot and to fight ... it might then become a little harder to murder them in cold blood for wanting to something other than chattel.


----------



## Brockvegas (10 Sep 2007)

Guys, it's going to take time for cultural feelings about education to change, all we can do is make sure the schools are available to them and have faith that they will come around and start taking advantage of the opportunity. We have to do our part, and they have to do theirs, and it seems that they are STARTING to.


----------



## observor 69 (12 Sep 2007)

Just watched an excellent TVO progran on what Canada should be doing in Afghanistan.

The Debate: The Ambiguity of Afghanistan 
Uncertainty on the ground, and an uncertain political climate at home: checking in on Canada's role in Afghanistan

http://tinyurl.com/yqsx25

I was encouraged to hear much support for Canada staying in KAF in the combat role after Feb 2009. Except for Steven Staples (insert fancy word for idiot here) the general opinion of this group of very informed individuals was that Canada realistically would have to stay in KAF in combat role but with increasing emphasis on OMLT with the Kandak.

I will provide updating info as TVO makes a video of this program available in the next few days.


----------



## GAP (12 Sep 2007)

A little dated (7 Sept), but interesting......

RUSSELL D STORRING: A Soldier's Life
September 7, 2007
Article Link

The daily grind  
After returning from a training excercise in Wainwright, Alta., at the beginning of June, I sign my detachment over to Golf Troop and I remain part of Fox Troop, scheduled for an upcoming tour of duty to Afghanistan. Half of my detachment members remain together in their troop, the other half are divided up between the other troops in 3 Squadron. 

A few of my soldiers were hoping we would be able to stick together longer, but the squadron has to plan for future deployments and decides to spread the knowledge base of my soldiers around. Although not everyone likes where they head off to, it gives an idea of when they can expect to be deployed overseas. 

I find myself filling the role of the Fox Troop training and administration sergeant, as I am only slated as an alternate for the upcoming tour. Essentially, if anything happens to the other two sergeants, or for some reason they cannot deploy, then I will replace them. I have to be ready to deploy, but in the end, I may not go. 

I have seen some people at CFJSR (Canadian Forces Joint Signals Regiment) deploy with only a couple of weeks' notice, and since I just left the High Readiness Troop, I am pretty much ready to go. Nathalie and the boys understand the situation, and although it would not be ideal for me to deploy, we hope that, if I have to go, it won't interfere with Christmas. 

Afghanistan makes the headlines every week or two with its steadily growing list of casualties, tragically reminding the nation of the human cost of the mission. The new, large Canadian flag at CFB Kingston, in Ontario, is one of the first symbols I see every day when I head to work, and, sadly over the past few months, it has been lowered to half mast at least every two weeks on the death or burial of fallen soldiers. It is a solemn reminder to all who drive by or through the gates of the price that is paid for what we believe in. 

The recent naming of the "Highway of Heroes" along Ontario's 401 freeway seems such a small yet fitting tribute to those who travel its path in memorial police and military escorts. The impromptu thousands of mourners and respect-payers for each soldier who makes that final journey from CFB Trenton to Toronto demonstrate the support that Canadians have for their fallen, and for soldiers as a whole. There are no politics, no protests and no demonstrations, just support for those who have paid the ultimate price. 
More on link


----------



## observor 69 (14 Sep 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Just watched an excellent TVO progran on what Canada should be doing in Afghanistan.
> 
> The Debate: The Ambiguity of Afghanistan
> Uncertainty on the ground, and an uncertain political climate at home: checking in on Canada's role in Afghanistan
> ...



To watch the video of this interesting discussion go to:

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=7&bpn=779018&ts=2007-09-12%2020:00:00.0

and click on "Watch video."

Edit:
Chose "The Ambiguity of Afghanistan" if you want to miss the Michael Byers interview.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2007)

Sarcasm off....

Found this intriguing chart put together by the Swiss Peace Foundation.  It's a pretty lefty-sounding group from its description, but the chart is the first graphic representation I've seen encompassing a good chunk of the factors that have to be considered in making AFG a better place to live.

Analytical Framework Afghanistan

Last pages also have fair number of links for more information (albeit mostly development & NGO'ish).

Shared FYI.....


----------



## GAP (17 Sep 2007)

If Canada withdraws, Taliban will run rampant, mullah says
GRAEME SMITH  From Monday's Globe and Mail September 17, 2007 at 3:59 AM EDT
Article Link

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — Canada must not be scared away from Kandahar because Afghan forces wouldn't be capable of stopping the Taliban from overwhelming government towns, one of the region's most prominent tribal elders says.

Mullah Naqib is not the first Afghan leader who has pleaded for Canadian troops to stay, but his emotional words are the most pointed example so far of the deep worry among local allies about what will happen after the Canadian commitment expires in 18 months.

"They should not be scared," Mr. Naqib said in an interview.

The elder's opinions carry weight in Kandahar, where he rose to prominence during the fight against Soviet occupation and later served as provincial governor. Mr. Naqib's band of Alokozai tribesmen has been a pillar of support for every regime in Kandahar for the past 15 years, including the Taliban and the current Afghan government.
More on link


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Sep 2007)

In spite of Bruce Campion-Smith's spinning efforts this piece in the _Toronto Star_ suggests strongly that Afstan's far and away largest city is doing pretty well by local standards (rather different from Baghdad); now if only the major networks showed us video on a regular basis Canadians might have a rather more informed view of Afghan realities:
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/257645



> *In Kabul, the biggest fear is crime*
> ...
> KABUL–Strolling past the carpet and jewellery stores along Chicken St., the fighting and bombings in Kandahar seem like a distant problem.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (22 Sep 2007)

The Star - Toronto

 PM needs new tack on Afghanistan

September 22, 2007 
James Travers

Ottawa 

Stephen Harper wisely changed his defence minister this summer. Unwisely, his government is hesitating to change the Afghanistan channel this fall.

Peter MacKay, Gordon O'Connor's younger, more media-savvy replacement, is mouthing a familiar sound bite as he pleads for support. Reduced to its essence, the new defence minister is saying now what George W. Bush said before toppling governments first in Kabul, then Baghdad: Fighting them over there keeps us safe over here.

That the argument is suspect is no longer the point. Watching complex plots unfold in two war zones is creating a more sophisticated North American audience. Few today believe, as many did after the Taliban fled and Saddam Hussein fell, that decisive military victories are still possible.

Generals now compete with academics for airtime to argue for political solutions. Accepting that accommodation is necessary is not just a tonal adjustment, it alters the picture. Demonizing future negotiating partners no longer makes any more sense, or is any more convincing, than attacking the patriotism of those who question the mission.

Facing a debate and a decision on Canada's combat role after February 2009, this government needs to fast-forward its rhetoric to catch up to shifting reality. Canadians who knew next to nothing about Afghanistan in 2001 now know too much about the region to risk more lives and billions on the strength of the simplistic notion that killing Taliban insurgents will stop terrorism incubating.

Along with forgetting history and ignoring that extremists have many other nesting options – Al Qaeda festers in Africa's horn 20 years after embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania – the Conservative argument skips too lightly over what Canadians have learned since Liberals first sent troops to Afghanistan.

Endemic corruption, a booming opium trade and the duplicity of allies who leave borders open to enemies have stripped away the good versus evil illusions. At home, it has become patently obvious the mission has layers of motives stacking from reassuring Washington that Ottawa is serious about security to the military remaking its peacekeeping image as it rearms.

Each element has a place in a public debate that to be complete must also include an unflinching look in the mirror. If politicians can find enough courage to face the reflection, Canadians will discover that, along with imperfections, there are notable improvements. A mission dominated by the military but marketed as combining the three Ds of defence, development and diplomacy is glacially morphing into a broader, more disciplined effort that accepts generals have agendas and writing aid cheques doesn't guarantee measurable improvements in impoverished lives.

That's progress. So is recognition that reconstructing failed states is painfully slow work with uncertain results. Six years of watching the grimmest reality TV has better prepared Canadians to answer questions about what they are willing to do for Afghanistan when the current commitment ends.

Harper and his ministers need to make two new candid arguments in favour of a continuing role. More time is needed to find a political compromise, one that inevitably includes the Taliban and excludes Al Qaeda. And development will continue in the north only as long as the military contains most of the insurgency in the south.
Along with moving the debate from fantasy to facts, that would finally change the channel from today's cartoon images to something more suitable for adults.

http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/259313


----------



## George Wallace (22 Sep 2007)

James Travers hasn't said anything new.  He has written a piece to fill space in a newspaper and completely missed the point.  The "General Public" has always been 'relatively' sophisticated.  Decisive military victories have never been the "be all - end all".  They have never brought peace.  They have had to be followed by strong "Statesmanship" on the part of our political leaders.  Without the strong Statesmanship amongst the world's leaders, military victories are all for naught.  Conflict will only continue.  It is the Statesman in the end who must forge the final articles that bring about Peace.

Unfortunately, as we look around, do we see any Roosevelts or Churchills?  

This is where we are loosing our wars.


----------



## Asrail (22 Sep 2007)

The Agenda - Video - Sept. 12: Michael Byers | The Ambiguity of Afghanistan

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/tvoutils/globalfiles/VideoPop.cfm?spot_id=2947&sitefolder=theagenda

A little lengthy, and the m byers stuff is just awful (u can see paikin's intellectual frustration just simmering below the surface throughout the interview, hilarious), but if u can make the time to listen to the following debate (including CF representation!), it provides a much more nuanced take on our mission to a-stan than the simplified and agenda-oriented political drivel we're being fed from our dear 'roosevelts and churchills'. personally, i find the canadian political 'foot-balling' of the a-stan issue by our dear leaders even more frustrating and enraging than good ole-fashioned g bush II rhetoric (ie 'liberating the poor people of ... [fill in whatever middle-eastern slave-nation that's suddenly realized that conducting an international oil exchange in US dollars isn't necessarily the most profitable way to go], ie 'looking for weapons of mass destruction that surely must be there' ie ... )... at least GBII sticks to his lies.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Sep 2007)

Just a little clean up and I, (at least I), can read it more easily:

The Agenda - Video - Sept. 12: Michael Byers | The Ambiguity of Afghanistan

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/tvoutils/globalfiles/VideoPop.cfm?spot_id=2947&sitefolder=theagenda

A little lengthy, and the M. Byers stuff is just awful (You can see Paikin's intellectual frustration just simmering below the surface throughout the interview, hilarious), but if you can make the time to listen to the following debate (including CF representation!), it provides a much more nuanced take on our mission to A-stan than the simplified and agenda-oriented political drivel we're being fed from our dear 'Roosevelts and Churchills'. Personally, I  find the Canadian political 'foot-balling' of the A-stan issue by our dear leaders even more frustrating and enraging than good ole-fashioned G Bush II rhetoric (ie 'liberating the poor people of ... [fill in whatever middle-eastern slave-nation that's suddenly realized that conducting an international oil exchange in US dollars isn't necessarily the most profitable way to go], ie 'looking for weapons of mass destruction that surely must be there' ie ... )... at least GBII sticks to his lies.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Sep 2007)

A football analogy for the Canadian mission:

Suppose you are on a football team playing in a close game. Some members of your team aren't exactly playing hard, increasing the chance that the team will lose. Do you then decide to dog it too, or do you keep playing as hard as you can, still working for the win? And increasing the chance that you'll be injured.

It all depends on your attitude--and principles.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Sep 2007)

I'm hurling to the max--just lost any respect for puffed-up, pseudo hard-boiled Don Martin of CanWest News.   His lead paragraph today:
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=2df2cdaa-a960-43f8-907c-380d6016966d



> Many Canadian soldiers were pledging a return to Afghanistan even before they left the last lethal rotation, tempted as much by combat pay premiums of about $3,000 a month as by the mission's merits...



:rage:

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (22 Sep 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> James Travers hasn't said anything new.  He has written a piece to fill space in a newspaper and completely missed the point.  The "General Public" has always been 'relatively' sophisticated.  Decisive military victories have never been the "be all - end all".  They have never brought peace.  They have had to be followed by strong "Statesmanship" on the part of our political leaders.  Without the strong Statesmanship amongst the world's leaders, military victories are all for naught.  Conflict will only continue.  It is the Statesman in the end who must forge the final articles that bring about Peace.
> 
> Unfortunately, as we look around, do we see any Roosevelts or Churchills?
> 
> This is where we are loosing our wars.



Different times call for different types of leaders with the strengths required for the particular times. Having said that I agree with your sentiment entirely.  
It's been a long lonely time since I have seen a "statesman."


----------



## observor 69 (22 Sep 2007)

The G&M takes a stand.  


Canada must stay the course

Saturday, September 22, 2007 – Page A24 

Canada cannot abandon Afghanistan. We have made a commitment to the Afghan people and to the international community, and if we believe the governing structures there can be stabilized, we are obliged to stay on ethical, humanitarian and practical grounds that relate to our own national security interests and those of our allies. Canada therefore must make clear to its NATO partners, and to the Afghan people, that it has no intention of quitting Afghanistan until the job is done. Since the job will not be done by February 2009, the expiration date for the current mission in Kandahar, Prime Minister Stephen Harper should affirm a commitment to remaining in Afghanistan beyond 2009 - and call a vote to that effect this year. It is time for the Prime Minister to unambiguously sell the necessity of the mission to Canadians. It is time to end the notion that Canada is withdrawing from Afghanistan. To do less, to wait and see, is unfair to the Afghans and represents a failure of leadership.

There is a strong case for extending the deployment of Canada's troops in Kandahar itself. It is a dangerous place. It is also a place where this country, through the bravery and sacrifice of its soldiers, has been able to make a difference in the world. Kandahar is the front line in the fight for Afghanistan's future and the war on terror. It is in places like Kandahar that the old Afghanistan of the Taliban not only defiled the Afghan people but incubated terrorism spread around the globe. It is in such places that the new Afghanistan must be built. Kandahar is an important mission.

But the decision to remain in Kandahar is ultimately a decision for the Parliament of Canada. The mission has been weakened by the Prime Minister's inability to maintain bipartisan support - manifest in the astonishing climb-down of Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion, who is ignoring his party's lead role in sending Canadian troops to Kandahar in the first place in order to portray Mr. Harper as a George W. Bush clone. Mr. Dion is capitalizing on the Conservative government's own failure to explain to Canadians why it is important for our troops to be there. For many people, the loss of 70 soldiers is an extremely high price to pay. It is Mr. Harper's job to persuade them that the sacrifice is worthwhile, that stability can be won in Afghanistan and the West made safe. The Prime Minister must do more in Parliament, and in the country, for this mission.

If we are boxed in politically, there is another option for Canada: redeployment elsewhere within Afghanistan. Contrary to what Mr. Dion implies, Canada's presence in Afghanistan is not the product of Harper unilateralism, but is the fulfilment of a multilateral commitment. Canada is on the ground as part of a NATO mission operating under a United Nations mandate. Afghanistan is not Iraq. It would be regrettable, but if politically absolutely necessary Canada could announce its intention to end the Kandahar mission in February 2009 and declare its availability to take up another assignment in Afghanistan - one involving an ongoing substantial commitment of troops. 

If Canada is to remain in Kandahar, it must be contingent on its NATO allies also doing their part. This is not our fight alone. Here, Canada has leverage it can use on countries like France, which have so far acted largely as cheerleaders. France is a big country. It is, at least on paper, a powerful country. Yet it has only one-third as many troops in Afghanistan as Canada. Its new president, Nicolas Sarkozy, is more inclined to support NATO and value the transatlantic alliance than his predecessors. That support needs to be tested. Pressure must also be brought to bear on Germany, Italy and Spain.

Canada should remain true to its own commitment to the Afghan people. As part of next month's Throne Speech, the government should announce its intention to retain a sizable force of Canadian troops in Afghanistan until 2011, and to hold a vote on such an extension within this calendar year. 

http://tinyurl.com/23bvd2


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Sep 2007)

Baden Guy: Some stand :'



> If we are boxed in politically, there is another option for Canada: redeployment elsewhere within Afghanistan...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Flip (22 Sep 2007)

> Many Canadian soldiers were pledging a return to Afghanistan even before they left the last lethal rotation, tempted as much by combat pay premiums of about $3,000 a month as by the mission's merits.



Yea, stupid remark. Turns the whole comment into a cheap shot.

Fortunately, it looks like one.

He deserves more than a few PFO letters for that.


----------



## TCBF (22 Sep 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Yea, stupid remark. Turns the whole comment into a cheap shot.
> 
> Fortunately, it looks like one.
> 
> He deserves more than a few PFO letters for that.



- I have no doubt that he came by that opinion honestly.  Was it a scientific poll?  I doubt it, but we know there are enough soldiers in our ranks who would agree to that statement if a reporter presented it to them.


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Sep 2007)

Conclusion of a fairly thoughtful piece in the _Ottawa Citizen_ today:
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=336f30b3-5181-42c6-8d7a-9944fa8e7eb6



> ...
> The choice that faces Canada may come down to whether serious negotiations with some important elements of the Taliban are possible or not. If there is some glimmer of hope that the Taliban, or even some of its factions, may be considering a negotiated alternative, then withdrawal from the combat role may be the worst tactic at this time. If Canada is convinced that no negotiation is possible, then abandoning Afghanistan to its fate may be a sensible option -- although there are no guarantees that it will not again be used as a base for terrorist attacks against the West, thereby requiring us to go back later at even higher cost than today.
> 
> But between these two extremes may be a third option, which would be to *accept that the February 2009 deadline is an arbitrary one that is relevant to Canadian politics but not to the situation in Afghanistan* [emphasis added]. Instead of focusing almost entirely on political issues in Canada, the leaders of all our parties might do well to ask why we are in Afghanistan in the first place and what interests there would be served by a debate that frames the issues around a requirement that we decide today whether we either totally withdraw from or stay in the combat role over a year from now. The training of the Afghan National Army continues and we simply do not know where negotiations with the Taliban, or elements of the Taliban, may be in early 2009.
> ...



I agree with the conclusion; but I think the bit about "no negotiation" being possible is rather a straw man as clearly some sort of negotiations with some elements of the Taliban will take place--it's not an all or nothing proposition. And clearly foreign troops will be withdrawn in any case if and as the situation improves; nobody just wants to stay there.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (23 Sep 2007)

http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20British%20Retreat%20From%20Iraq.txt

20 August 2007

British Retreat From Iraq
                                                           
By Gwynne Dyer

        "The British have given up and they know they will be leaving Iraq
soon," said Moqtada al-Sadr, head of the Mehdi army, the country's most
powerful militia group, in an interview with the Independent.  "They have
realised this is not a war they should be fighting or one they can win." 
Every word he said is true, and most senior officers in the British army
know it. As General Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the British army, said
last year, Britain "should get out (of Iraq) some time soon."

        Being prime minister is hard. Gordon Brown waited ten years for
Tony Blair to pass on the prime ministership, and no sooner does he finally
inherit the job than he has to figure out a way to pull the British troops
out of Iraq in the middle of the American "surge." That will not be seen as
a friendly gesture by the beleaguered Bush administration.

        There are 5,500 British troops in Iraq, by far the largest foreign
army after the Americans, but they control almost nothing except the ground
they are standing on.  Five hundred of them are under permanent siege in
Basra Palace, in the middle of Iraq's second-biggest city, and the rest are
at the airport outside of town, under constant attack by rocket and mortar
fire. They have almost no influence over the three rival Shia militias and
the associated criminals who actually run the city and fight over the large
sums of money to be made from stolen oil.

        Forty-one British soldiers have died in Iraq already this year,
compared to 29 in the whole of last year. The deaths are wasted and it's
high time to go home, but Prime Minister Gordon Brown is reluctant to anger
the White House by pulling all the British troops out before the Americans
are ready to leave. That, however, is unlikely to happen before President
George W. Bush leaves office in January 2009, as British generals are well
aware.

        The Democrats in Congress have clearly decided that they prefer to
see the Republicans go into the election late next year with the albatross
of Iraq still tied firmly around their necks, rather than mount a
Congressional revolt, cut off funds for the war, and take the blame for the
defeat.

        President Bush says his policy is to "wait to see what David
(Petraeus) has to say" when the commanding general in Iraq reports on what
progress the "surge" is making in mid-September.  But Mr Bush didn't fire
the previous US commanders in Iraq and give Petraeus the job without
knowing in advance what he would say.

        Petraeus will see light at the end of the tunnel, as he always
does. The Democratic majorities in Congress will criticise his report but
not rebel against it, and US troops will probably stay in Iraq at roughly
the present numbers until President Bush leaves office seventeen months
from now.   Several thousand American soldiers will have to die to serve
these agendas, but so will around a hundred British troops.

        British generals are deeply unhappy at this prospect, but as
students of the indirect approach in strategy they have chosen to argue not
so much that the war in Iraq is lost (though it is), but that the war in
Afghanistan is still winnable. So the reason we must get British troops out
of Iraq now is not just to avoid more useless deaths, but to win by
reinforcing our commitment in Afghanistan, which is the truly vital theatre
in the "war on terror."

        General Dannatt was at it again last week, telling the BBC during a
visit to Afghanistan that "the army is certainly stretched. And when I say
that we can't deploy any more battle groups (in Afghanistan) at the present
moment, that's because we're trying to get a reasonable balance of life for
our people." The too-frequent cycle of combat deployments is certainly
harming Britain's forces, with divorces and suicides soaring and retention
rates plummeting, but Dannatt's unspoken sub-text was: you can fix this by
pulling us out of Iraq.

        There are already more British troops in Afghanistan (7,000) than
in Iraq, so the argument makes a kind of sense: concentrate your resources
where they will make a difference. Except that Afghanistan, in the end, is
also an unwinnable war, at least in the ambitious terms still used in the
West.

        Almost thirty years ago the Soviet Union, backing another
modernising regime in Kabul against the deeply conservative prejudices of
the countryside, committed an average of 200,000 troops into Afghanistan
and kept them there for ten years, and it still lost. There have never been
more than 50,000 Western troops in Afghanistan, and there is zero
probability that the number might ever even double. Let alone that they
might stay there for ten years.

        The war in Afghanistan is unwinnable, too, in the long run, and
President Hamid Karzai's best chance of survival is for the Western troops
to leave soon.  Then he would at least be free to make the deals with
warlords, drug-dealers and renegade Taliban, in the traditional Afghan
style, that would secure his authority and prolong his life. But if false
hope about Afghanistan provides the pretext for pulling British troops out
of Iraq, why not?
        When Gordon Brown faces parliament again in October, his biggest
Iraq problem will not be pressure from the public. It will be pressure from
the army.
.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Sep 2007)

Pardon my anglo-saxon, but Gwynne Dyer can sit on it (to paraphrase Fonzie, Potsie, et al)


----------



## Flip (23 Sep 2007)

I used to respect Gwynn Dyer - But I was young then.... 
The guy is a populist opinion authour - he has the opinion he thinks he can sell.
Eric Margolis is much the same kind of animal.

To be fair, both guys are very bright and informed.
Just end up in the (consistently) wrong place is all.

Naturally, the above is my opinion only....


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Sep 2007)

New Foreign Minister Bernier gives a pretty decent defence of the mission (usual fair use copyright disclaimer):
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=8f282b6a-cbff-403b-b9e7-da151fc2c110



> A debate is under way about the nature of Canada's mission in Afghanistan's Kandahar province after its mandate expires in 2009. Today, we are hearing mostly criticism from the opposition parties in Ottawa, which is normal.
> 
> This criticism will perhaps have caused many people to forget that it was the previous Liberal government that launched this mission, and that the Liberals support Canada's commitment to continue its military efforts within the International Security Assistance Force until 2009.
> 
> ...



Good luck finding "realistic and responsible adults" amongst the opposition.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin (24 Sep 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Good luck finding "realistic and responsible adults" amongst the opposition.



There are some.  Mr. Ignatieff comes to mind.  Maybe he'll lead a "velvet revolution" within the Liberal Party, taking maybe 30 or so with him and cross the floor en masse with the understanding that they will revert to the Liberal Party during the next general election.  And maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Sep 2007)

Susan Riley, an _Ottawa Citizen_ columnist who really does seem to think that PM Harper is a clone of President Bush, inadvertently (I am sure) identifies the sheer absurdity of opposition posturing on Afstan:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=1789be1b-6244-43cc-a32d-f4c945bc5110



> If we do have an election over Afghanistan, we would likely end up with another minority. Harper would campaign to send more troops, the opposition would prefer conflict resolution teams and social workers.



More on negotiations:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/09/24/4522076-cp.html



> Canada is throwing away an opportunity to help Afghan President Hamid Karzai fracture the Taliban by not actively supporting his repeated peace overtures to moderate insurgents, an international think-tank charged Monday.
> 
> The Senlis Council, a European-based agency that's conducted extensive research in war-torn southern Afghanistan, says the appeal to less-dogmatic Taliban has a good chance of succeeding if NATO countries throw their full support behind it.
> 
> ...



Publicly taking the diplomatic lead is rather easier said than done; quite backroom work with the Afghan government and NATO allies would be more to the point at this time, to explore what in reality might be achieved by "negotiations" and with whom.  And any efforts to negotiate either around or behind the government would be deeply mistaken.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Sep 2007)

What the CP story above on the Senlis Council did not mention from the Council's news release; No wonder Canadians are ill-informed about Afghanistan:
http://www.senliscouncil.org/modules/media_centre/news_releases/89_news



> MacDonald also *called on more NATO countries to take the burden off Canadian soldiers* [emphasis added] currently fighting in Kandahar. “It is imperative that NATO has more troops on the ground in the south to *secure a decisive military victory* [emphasis added],” she said. “This would reduce the need for bombing campaigns, which are causing enormous suffering and turning the local population against us.
> 
> “The lack of a sufficient NATO deployment means that the military do not have the troops necessary to hold territory. Often, when they move on to another hot spot, the Taliban simply return to areas already cleared, meaning our troops are having to go back and fight over and over again for the same territory,” said MacDonald.



And a post at _The Torch_:

No Afstan April Fool
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/09/no-afstan-april-fool.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo (25 Sep 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> There are some.  Mr. Ignatieff comes to mind.  Maybe he'll lead a "velvet revolution" within the Liberal Party, taking maybe 30 or so with him and cross the floor en masse with the understanding that they will revert to the Liberal Party during the next general election.  And maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.



Heh... now THAT, I'd like to see 

The monkeys, not Iggy


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Sep 2007)

> ....Canada is throwing away an opportunity to help Afghan President Hamid Karzai fracture the Taliban by not actively supporting his repeated peace overtures to moderate insurgents, an international think-tank charged Monday.
> 
> The Senlis Council, a European-based agency that's conducted extensive research in war-torn southern Afghanistan, says the appeal to less-dogmatic Taliban has a good chance of succeeding if NATO countries throw their full support behind it.
> 
> ...



Forgive me if I'm wrong but isn't it the US, in the form of General Petraeus, that "appeal(ed) to less dogmatic" Iraqi Insurgents, thus  "separating hard-core Islamic fundamentalists and Al-Qaeda supporters from moderates" and as a consequence "weaken(ing) the insurgency and reduc(ing) its offensive capacity."

It doesn't appear to me that the strategy/tactic espoused by Ms. MacDonald is at odds with U.S. foreign policy, rather it is at the heart of it.  And not just on the ground in Iraq but broadly, internationally.  While Bush is busting 2x4s over the heads of donkeys to get their attention the U.S. actively seeks to engage allies (both those that control governments and those that would topple governments) and "manages" threats.  This is not peculiar to the U.S.  It is what governments do.

This includes the Afghan government - for which the Canadian Forces work while they are in Afghanistan (imho the CF is on loan to Hamid Karzai by Stephen Harper in much the same way we might loan him a lawnmower or a generator).  Karzai has always kept the door open for EX-Taliban to come in from the cold and be part of the system of governance.  The appropriate point is that they must be EX and not current.  This is an ongoing strategy of separating leaders from followers.  To the extent that it has succeeded and there is more "Government" territory, more "Government" tribes, more "Government" cities and more "Government" people now than in 2001 it seems to me that Ms. MacDonald is calling for more of the same.  

My ideal conclusion to all of this is the coming of the day when Messrs Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Omar are confronted in a cave or hotel room with no remaining supporters and offered the opportunity to negotiate on behalf of themselves.

I have a great deal of respect for much of Ms. MacDonald's work.  I think she and Senlis are fundamentally right on the poppies: price the drug barons out of the market.  I think she is very clear on the need to keep good, impartial, troops in the field to provide security and has been quite vociferous on the point.  This sets her well apart from the opposition herd on Parliament Hill. However there is a tendency for Anti-Americanism/Anti-Bushism to drown out the message - at least for my ears.  

Whether or not this is just because she is a Canadian liberal and it is a reflex, or it is an honestly held opinion, or it is necessary to maintain credibility with domestic donors and supporters and allied facilitators such as those found in the BeNeLux triangle and the likes of MoveOn.org I don't know.  But I don't believe it serves her cause well.  

On the other hand - If Stephen Harper could get her endorsement on the need to extend the mission for security purposes....... Now there would be a coup.  Almost as interesting as watching Mortarman Rockpainters monkeys fly


----------



## GAP (27 Sep 2007)

Being cowardly about being cowardly
Posted by Ezra Levant on September 27, 2007
Article Link

It's a legitimate point of view to argue that Canada should abandon Afghanistan. I disagree with it, but I can understand it. Quitting Afghanistan makes sense if you think that Canadian soldiers should never fight real wars, but should only be "peacekeepers" after the dangerous work is done; if you think that Canada has no national interest in Afghanistan; if you're a politician and want to win peacenik votes; to name a few reasons.

The Globe and Mail has uploaded a recording of  Stephane Dion's comments to their editorial board about pulling out of Afghanistan. Pressed repeatedly, Dion -- who was part of Paul Martin's cabinet that decided to send troops to Afghanistan in the first place -- simply refused to answer whether he'd pull out Canadian troops if no other country would replace them. He just wouldn't acknowledge the serious fact that Canada quitting means that the Taliban, not the Americans, would rule Kandahar. He just didn't want to talk about it, switching the subject repeatedly. This is not a man ready for the life-and-death decisions of foreign policy.

With a little editing, the tape is a ready-made radio ad for the Conservatives in the next election.
More on link


----------



## Brockvegas (28 Sep 2007)

Wow....just plain wow. I have never heard anyone as good as him at not answering a direct, yes or no, question. Dion absolutely astonishes me every time I hear him speak. Does he actually think he can CONFUSE people into voting for him come election time? 'Cause that seems to be his strategy thus far.


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Sep 2007)

At post at The Torch (by BBS) that analyzes appropriate Arabic words when dealing with Muslim insurgents:

Effective Communication
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/09/effective-communication.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Sep 2007)

We've gone from....



> *Canada assails Seoul for negotiating with Taliban*
> Agence France Presse, 30 Aug 07
> Article link
> 
> Canadian Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier criticized Seoul Thursday for having negotiated with "terrorists" to free South Korean hostages held by Taliban rebels in Afghanistan.  "The Canadian position on dealings with terrorists is well-known to all those with even a passing familiarity with the subject," Bernier said in a statement.  *"We do not negotiate with terrorists, for any reason. Such negotiations, even if unsuccessful, only lead to further acts of terrorism."*....



to



> *Any co-operation with Taliban must come with conditions: MacKay*
> Canadian Press, 29 Sept 07
> Article link
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay says the Taliban will have to renounce violence and accept the NATO mission in Afghanistan if it wants to work with the Afghan government.  Afghan President Hamid Karzai renewed his call Saturday for talks with the Taliban after a deadly suicide bombing in Kabul ....  Speaking at an enrolment ceremony for new military personnel in Halifax, *MacKay says any co-operation must include the preconditions that Karzai has laid out. Those include the Taliban's renunciation of violence and acceptance of the fact that NATO forces aren't leaving the country any time soon. * MacKay said he's comfortable with anyone who is prepared to move away from activities on the ground that put Canadian soldiers, and others who are part of the NATO mission, at risk.  He added, "if that involves having the (Taliban) leadership accept those conditions and renounce the violence, then it's moving towards what we all want to see, and that is a stable, peaceful society in Afghanistan."



So, how long is it going to take the "peace advocates" to call this a flip flop?


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Oct 2007)

A post at _The Torch_:

President Karzai, negotiations and the UN
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/09/president-karzai-negotiations-and-un.html

And this from the second of a three part series in the _Washington Post_ on IEDs (mainly Iraq):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001675_4.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2007092900754



> ...
> If attacks showed complex ingenuity, devices tended to be simple, usually suggesting technical skills equivalent to those of a ham radio operator or a vocational school graduate, according to a DOD scientist. Simplicity made it easier to employ unlettered emplacers, who by late 2004 were generally recognized as being mercenaries rather than ideologues.
> 
> Perhaps reflecting the triumph of supply over demand, emplacer fees continued to decline, typically ranging from the equivalent of $300 to as little as $25. Killing a coalition soldier might earn a $700 bonus. In Afghanistan, a recent coalition price list showed that the families of suicide bombers usually were paid $500 to $2,000, with bounties *as high as $10,000 for assassinating a NATO soldier* [emphasis added]...



More from Douglas Farah:

IEDs and the Failure to Adapt
http://www.douglasfarah.com/article/253/ieds-and-the-failure-to-adapt.com



> The Washington Post has devoted an inordinate amount of space to get into the nitty-gritty of one of the largest structural difficulties facing the military in the new wars it will be fighting-ability to adapt quickly to low-tech enemies.
> 
> The two-part [three actually] series looks at the effectiveness of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and the long, late, multi-billion dollar effort by the military-ultimately unsuccessful-to combat them. IEDs are responsible for the vast bulk of the U.S. casualties in Iraq, and are increasingly used in Afghanistan as well. It has become the weapon of choice, along with suicide bombings, of the Islamist insurgencies.
> 
> ...



Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (1 Oct 2007)

Kandahar Dispatches« Previous Post | Main 

More Canadian injuries, fewer reported
Monday, October 1, 2007 | 04:37 AM ET By Kandahar Dispatch By David Common
Article Link

I’ve just spent a few days on a thrilling and depressing story. My camera operator and I were embedded with an American medevac helicopter crew. They’re a good, friendly, capable bunch of guys who welcomed us instantly.

By far, the majority of the injured who are loaded into the back of their heaving Blackhawks are Canadians. 

That tells a tale now rarely talked about: a great many Canadian soldiers are being injured in Afghanistan. And we’re not hearing about it.

The question now is, why? Two years ago, at the outset of this more dangerous mission in southern Afghanistan, any and every injury was made public to journalists embedded with Canadian soldiers in Kandahar, and with Canadians at large. 

Names of the injured weren’t always released, citing a very justifiable desire for privacy. But their general injuries always were. If someone was injured in a road accident, it was made public. Ditto for someone being shot, hit by a suicide bomber or a roadside bomb — even if it was a minor wound.

Now most injuries not reported

A new policy has clearly emerged. Deaths are still reported but injuries are not, unless one of two scenarios exists. The first is if the injury is so severe, it may very well result in death. The second is if journalists already know about it. If a journalist happens to be in a convoy that is hit and sees the injury, they’ll obviously know about it.

Injuries are increasingly frequent these days. As many as four roadside bomb strikes happen each week. Soldiers are being injured in the process, some of them seriously. Some of them will lose limbs. Others will have their lives irreparably damaged. We won’t know. Whether we should know is another question.

So what’s changed? There is the argument that politicians — fearing a further loss of public support for this mission — don’t want to reveal the true number of injuries. Another school of thought is that the injuries have become so routine, the military doesn’t view them as a “new development” and thus not newsworthy (or publicly releasable). A final argument is that there is now so much violence, the deployed soldiers’ would prefer to reduce the publication of bad news that will further worry their families back in Canada.

As the medevac crew was launched on one medical mission after another, we repeatedly saw Canadian soldiers being loaded and unloaded. 

The point is this: soldiers have died in this place, but many more have been injured. The United States, which is engaged in its own largely unpopular war in Iraq, still releases injury statistics. Canada does not.
More on link

Answer to David Common's question in the article: Maybe because the CF is sick and tired of the MSM blowing the minor injuries into big issues because they think they have to try to grab the headline in the next day's issue


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Oct 2007)

Conference of Defence Associations' Talking Points on the Afghan Mission:
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/CDA_Commentary/CDA%20Afghan%20talking%20points%20EN%20FR.pdf

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## corby7 (3 Oct 2007)

Bring our soldiers home. They are dying for no reason. If its gods will let it be. Our soldiers are fighting a battle for peace, yet when peace is restored after years and years, it will all spark up once again. We will notfix this problem. Only kill husbands, wives, fathers, brothers, sisters. I would like to say that it will not help in the long run, and only delay the inevitable. Third world countries fight because that is what they do. We will not change this maybe slow it down, but that is all. I hate saying this I really do but alot of countries have been fighting long before we thought to go in and save the world.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (3 Oct 2007)

Corby
It's a good thing the men and women of 1939-45 didn't say the same thing about the situation in Europe. The US tried to stay out of it but eventually they couldn't because the war was destabilizing the civilized world. If we let this go in AFK it will eventually show up back here on our doorstep again. Your sentiments are ostrichlike and do a dishonour to those who have already given their lives in this cause. We must stay the course and help this nation to her feet. If no one else the women and children of AFK deserve our help.


----------



## corby7 (3 Oct 2007)

Yes this is some what true. I do feel bad for the women and children. But this country will fight years after we are even involved. I have one question for you...will the fighting ever stop.


----------



## GAP (3 Oct 2007)

Has not the CF had missions lasting 30+ years, just to help people sort things out.....why would this be any different?


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Oct 2007)

Fatalities.  Plus George Bush.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## corby7 (3 Oct 2007)

Death and destruction is what the world is made up of. Sad but true...But then again i am diagnosed with Major Depression and Anxiety. So maybe I am wrong lol


----------



## GAP (3 Oct 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Fatalities.  Plus George Bush.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Humpt....you weren't supposed to tell the truth!!  ;D


----------



## TCBF (3 Oct 2007)

corby7 said:
			
		

> Yes this is some what true. I do feel bad for the women and children. But this country will fight years after we are even involved. I have one question for you...will the fighting ever stop.



- Apparently, things may get much much worse before they get better:

KJV, Mat 24:6 
"And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars:
 see that ye be not troubled: 
for all [these things] must come to pass,
 but the end is not yet." 

KJV, Mat 24:7 
"For nation shall rise against nation, 
and kingdom against kingdom: 
and there shall be famines, 
and pestilences, 
and earthquakes, 
in divers places."

KJV,Mat 24:8 
"All these [are] the beginning of sorrows. "

- Buckle up, buttercups!


----------



## TCBF (3 Oct 2007)

corby7 said:
			
		

> Death and destruction is what the world is made up of. Sad but true...But then again i am diagnosed with Major Depression and Anxiety. So maybe I am wrong lol



- You picked a fine website to visit to cheer yourself up!



- Fact is, we ain't all that bad.

 8)


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (4 Oct 2007)

corby7 said:
			
		

> Yes this is some what true. I do feel bad for the women and children. But this country will fight years after we are even involved. I have one question for you...will the fighting ever stop.



Yes I think it will but we have to be there long enought to make a difference. When ordinary people's lives are seen to be better and the security they need is realized people will not want to go back to a state of fear.It takes time and patience, hard work and blood (unfortunatly). The Taliban and drug lords will not give up easily, they will have to be routed out and dealt with...that takes time and a mindset needs to be altered.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Oct 2007)

corby7 said:
			
		

> Death and destruction is what the world is made up of. Sad but true...But then again i am diagnosed with Major Depression and Anxiety. So maybe I am wrong lol



So you also agree that the UN should get out of peace keeping because all it does is to delay the inevitable war between the different groups?


----------



## observor 69 (4 Oct 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Yes I think it will but we have to be there long enought to make a difference. When ordinary people's lives are seen to be better and the security they need is realized people will not want to go back to a state of fear.It takes time and patience, hard work and blood (unfortunatly). The Taliban and drug lords will not give up easily, they will have to be routed out and dealt with...that takes time and a mindset needs to be altered.



Brian Stewart with a very informative report at the 22 minute mark.

http://www.cbc.ca/national/latestbroadcast.html


----------



## Stout (4 Oct 2007)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I've given this thread a quick sweep,  I don't know if anyone has brought up the report to Parliament on the progress in Afghanistan.
> http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/afghanistan/docs/260207_Report_E.pdf (En francais: http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/afghanistan/docs/260207_Report_F.pdf )
> 
> In fact I've found tonnes of usefull information at http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/afghanistan/menu-en.aspx  If this is a duplicate post, I apologise - I'm just posting this here because I finally swayed an acquaintance of mine,  who works for the NDP, using the very facts found in the report to Parliament.  (I know it is a few months old,  but still usefull)


I have to say I didn't know this report existed but I think it should be required reading for all canadians, whether your anti-war(whatever the hell that means, just because you think something isnt right doesnt make it go away) or you truly believe in everthing canada is supposed to stand for, this at least will provide you with an overview of the situation.


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Oct 2007)

Stout: A post by Damian Brooks at _The _Torch:

Say it with me...DE-VEL-OP-MENT
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/10/say-it-with-mede-vel-op-ment.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Oct 2007)

Highlights mine, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Big mistake to quit Afghan war, expert says*
Vancouver lawyer now fact-finding in Kandahar
James McNulty, The Province, 5 Oct 07
Article link

When Norine MacDonald talks about the war in Afghanistan, Canadians should listen.

The Vancouver lawyer has spent most of the past three years on the ground in the war-ravaged country as president and lead field researcher for the Senlis Council.

In her work for the European-funded think tank, MacDonald ventures from a compound in Kandahar City with armed protectors, dresses like a man, and has packed her own Kalashnikov rifle.

It is a long way from her former life as a Queen's Counsel corporate lawyer in downtown Vancouver.

It also makes MacDonald one of the best-informed Canadians on Afghanistan -- she has vastly more experience there than any member of the House of Commons -- and she doesn't like what she sees.

In an interview at The Province this week before returning to Kandahar via Moscow, MacDonald says NATO is losing the hearts and minds of Afghan citizens with its military-heavy, aid-light approach.

Rather than "stay the course," she wants to change the course, but stay and finish the job.

She agrees with Stephen Harper that Canada should continue in a combat role after 2009, but has little time for his failures on almost every other war front.

*She says the opposition parties make valuable points on the need for stronger development aid and a non-American approach to the poppy-crop issue, but has no time for troop-withdrawal demands.

"When the NDP says we should leave Afghanistan, what do they think is going to happen if the [Hamid] Karzai government falls, and al-Qaeda has a geo-political base again in southern Afghanistan?"

"We should stay until the job is done," MacDonald affirms, and that means "when the Karzai government is stabilized there . . .

"If we lose the Karzai government, if we lose southern Afghanistan, it will affect the security of all NATO countries for generations to come, and we don't know -- it's a lottery -- who's going to get hit."*

With the war a sure part of any Canadian election, she says *the debate should be around "measures of success, and how we're going to get there -- not to 'stay or go.'*

"That's a legitimate debate that Canadians have never been given an opportunity to participate in with proper facts on the table."

MacDonald's fact-finding has determined that Canada is failing miserably on aid delivery through the "dysfunctional" Canadian International Development Agency.

"It was never fit for the purpose of doing development aid in a war zone . . . I'm fed up.

*"We're saying CIDA, get out of Kandahar if you can't do it, and turn it all over to the military in the short term -- they can do it."*

MacDonald notes the Canadian military base has a top-notch medical facility, then asks, "Why don't we have that in Kandahar City?

"In our military base we have a Burger King and a Tim Hortons; half an hour away there's a refugee camp with starving children."

She adds that "not once in two years" has the international community provided any food, shelter or medical aid to an informal, 1,000-family refugee camp on the new, NATO-built main road to the Panjwaii district.

MacDonald says "we had the hearts and minds" of Afghans when the mission began, but "we've eroded that through bad counter-narcotics, lack of development and aid, and bombing raids" by U.S. and British planes on Afghan villages -- some called in by Canadian troops.

The Senlis Council rejects the U.S. plan to eradicate poppy crops, which will leave farmers with no way to feed their families.

MacDonald instead promotes a "poppy for medicine" trial that would see poppy cultivation licensed for pain-relief medicines in poor countries. She calls the Harper regime's silence on the issue a "cop-out, because obviously it endangers the Canadian troops."

She backs Karzai's talks with "locals" who became Taliban to feed their families but could be won back.

Harper's ambivalence on "talks" and his inability to convince other NATO nations to bolster ranks in Kandahar are failures, she adds.

MacDonald is the first to admit this is not an easy file. But that is no reason, she says, to give up.


----------



## GAP (5 Oct 2007)

IN AFGHANISTAN: Reconstruction is a delicate balancing act
Fri Oct 5 2007
  Article Link

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN - "See all the stacks of rocks out there?" 

Captain Barbara Honig points out the window of our armoured truck to a rugged, barren hill, dotted with clusters of large stones. 

"It's a minefield," says the specialist engineer commander for Canada's Provincial Reconstruction Team, as the hulking RG 31 Nyala, a vehicle typically used to clear mines, lumbers through the Arghandab District of Kandahar. 
The mines in this field -- relics of mujahadeen fighters, Soviets and the Taliban -- are marked with stone piles. But most risks in Kandahar aren't so clearly defined, and that makes redevelopment in the volatile province a careful balancing act for the roughly 350 Canadian soldiers and civilians in the PRT. 

Canada has run the province's reconstruction team since taking over from American troops in 2005, and on this trip we're visiting a development project at Mazara School in the district, specifically, a concrete wall around the school. The wall was designed by Honig's team of engineers, and aimed at offering better security and more privacy, so Afghan parents would let their daughters attend the schools, and teachers would feel safe enough to show up. 

The wall itself is a humble offering, as showpieces go. But the $24,000 structure was built by Afghan contractors after discussions with numerous community leaders, and 560 students now take morning classes at the school. Although it's already afternoon when we arrive, a throng of young children surrounds us, smiling and poking at our digital recorders, experienced enough to know that foreigners often come bearing gifts. 

The PRT has been steadily plugging away at other projects around the province. There are five community police stations either completed or in progress in Kandahar, each worth between $200,000 and $400,000, and 23 temporary vehicle checkpoints have been set up for added security in Kandahar City and Arghandab. These are solid signs of progress, however tentative, and for now at least, they're still standing. 

But then there's the matter of safety, and in Kandahar it's inextricably linked to any new development. Suicide bombings and improved explosive devices, or IEDs, are routine here, and just getting to the PRT camp required the protection of a Light Armoured Vehicle, or LAV, with two gunners sticking out the top, weapons at the ready.   
More on link


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Oct 2007)

A post at _The Torch_ (guess who):

A nattering nabob of negativism
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/10/nattering-nabob-of-negativism.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Oct 2007)

How war-mongering, US respect-craving, CDS Hillier bamboozled the innocents of Paul Martin's government into the Kandahar mission (leaving Darfur and Haiti in the lurch, where in fact there has been no need or place for Canadian troops since the Kandahar decision was made)--the article is by two usual suspects:

Blame Hillier
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/features/article.jsp?content=20071015_110199_110199



> EXCLUSIVE EXCERPT: The inside story of one man's push for an Afghan mission, and a government that let itself be persuaded
> 
> EUGENE LANG AND JANICE GROSS STEIN | October 15, 2007 |
> 
> ...



Read on.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## old medic (12 Oct 2007)

one should read the comments left by Scott Taylor as well.


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Oct 2007)

Taylor's comments are at the bottom of p. 1 at the link.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2007)

Stein and Lang are so full of sh!t their eyes are brown!

Unlike Lang, I wasn’t “in the room” so I think my comments are a little less self serving.

If Rick Hillier bamboozled the likes of Prime Minister Paul Martin, Clerk of the Privy Council Alex Himmelfarb and Chief of Staff Tim Murphy then they are dumber than a bag of hammers.

First: although it is probably true that the Brits asked us to join the Afghan mission everyone who read the papers recalls that John McCallum (then MND) was sent scurrying to Brussels to beg for a big, *leadership* role in ISAF (even though we did not have the resources which the original ISAF members had declared necessary for the mission leader – those resources, if I recall, included a major airfield operations team and a general hospital). The reason was simple: Jean Chrétien was about to disappoint George W Bush and our American friends and neighbours (not to mention only significant trading partner, source of our prosperity and _protector_) again; he had to have something, anything to offer in return for spurning BMD and Iraq. Afghanistan (ISAF, not the first mission to Kandahar) was that something. We went to Afghanistan because it served the political interests of the Liberal Party of Canada – the party which Mr. Lang serves so well.

Second: the doors Paul Martin and his government were afraid would close were not in the Pentagon; they were at the Canada/US border. Martin’s eye was, as it should have been, firmly fixed on Canada’s vital economic interests and about 90% of them involve cross border trade.

Third: Martin (is reported to have) said: _"I made four demands of Hillier before I agreed to the mission … I want in, but I want out. We do peacemaking and reconstruction and win hearts and minds. I am going to make a big demand on Darfur soon and you have to tell me I can have all the troops I need. And you must have the capacity for Haiti if that blows up again. I told him none of this could be constrained by Afghanistan or I wouldn't agree to the mission."_ Fair enough but Martin knew, must have known, that he was not going to make any significant ‘demand’ on the CF for Darfur, not for years because his own ministers and senior officials knew full well that Darfur/Sudan was years away from anything like a _solution_ which *might* involve any great number (beyond dozens) of Canadian soldiers. In any event, although it would have been very, very difficult – requiring the CF to ignore _promises_ of 1 year between ½ year ‘tours’ – DND could have, and still can, deploy something useful to Darfur if the government so decides.

The only sensible piece in the article is: _“No one in government or in the military predicted where the decision to go big to Kandahar would lead. No one expected that within a few months the Canadian Forces would be engaged in counterinsurgency warfare. No one predicted the widespread consequences from a package of military options. But Hillier's proposal was like a stone thrown into a stream. The stone is small, but the ripples are wide.”_ That’s the problem with war and politics.

The Ruxted Group called Mr. Lang’s bluff six months ago. That Prof. Stein fell for his drivel only proves that partisan political consideration overwhelm academic integrity in Canada, just as in the USA, Russia and France.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (12 Oct 2007)

I'm not a huge fan of Scott Taylor as he seems to always be waiting to bash senior officers whenever the opportunity presents itself, however, I think his comments on this article are good ones. It's not a book I'm tempted to buy but maybe I'll borrow one from the library.


----------



## GK .Dundas (12 Oct 2007)

I have thought a great many things about Paul Martin,  I believe he was indecisive at times and lacked some leaderships skills.But I have never doubted his intelligence. He is a lot of things but dumb is not one of them!
So it's safe say I will file Mr Lang's work in the Science Fiction/Fantasy section of my Library.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Oct 2007)

>If Rick Hillier bamboozled the likes of Prime Minister Paul Martin, Clerk of the Privy Council Alex Himmelfarb and Chief of Staff Tim Murphy then they are dumber than a bag of hammers.

That was my thought when I read the article yesterday.  How did the establishment civilians and politicians change so suddenly from having the CF firmly under their thumb for decades to a bunch of naive and willing virgins?


----------



## GAP (12 Oct 2007)

Re: We were never headed for Iraq - CBC 

This thread I started while watching the CBC National, even interviewing Eugene Lang about it, was what....
CBC spin?
 LiberaL Spin?
CBC and Liberal Spin?
Clued out MSM and Liberals trying to get out from under the accusation that they sent CF troops into Afghanistan?


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2007)

It is, as Ruxted said, a _new narrative_ which Liberals and 'friends of the Liberals'™ are spreading, furiously, in order to make Canadians forget that Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin conceived and executed the entire Afghanistan mission, combat role in Kandahar and all. Ruxted also assessed and explained Chrétien’s motives (from good through base and dishonourable) for going in the first place (and the second place, too) and Martin’s decision to send a PRT to Kandahar.

Lang and former Chrétien spin doctor Scott Reid, supported by fanatical anti-Conservatives like _Globe and Mail_ columnist Lawrence Martin are spreading what we used to call, back in the Cold War, _disinformation_; it is better described as *bull-sh!t* and it is intended to baffle Canadians. I expect it to succeed because big lies about _different_ people usually do.


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Oct 2007)

According to Lang and Stein the CF--to curry favour with the Pentagon--also bamboozled the Chretien gov't  about Iraq over our exchange officers with the UK and US:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=d968e7a8-52e1-49d7-b7e6-0932d94e0da4&p=1

Their book sure looks a hatchet job on the CF, not just Hillier.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2007)

Of course, no blame can be allowed to stick to Chrétien and Martin – it’s all Hillier’s fault and the fault of the evil military culture for creating him.

These people – smart people, important people, people we like to think are _responsible_ - are, to say the least, being _"economical with the truth"_; they are trying to rewrite the historical record while the ink is still wet.


Edit: I toned down my comment in the 2nd paragraph. It was inappropriate on Milnet.ca - below the standards we all accept for ourselves when we register.


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Oct 2007)

E.R. Campbell: At least they're not, in the immortal word of Col. "Bat" Guano, "preverts" :
http://www.uselessmoviequotes.com/umq_d010.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2007)

From McCallum via Lang/Stein via the National Post"



> "One of the problems I had was a misconception of military terminology. They said we had people at the headquarters in Kuwait. And at that point I didn't understand--or maybe they deliberately didn't tell me-- that headquarters move.



There's news.  The military conducts mobile operations and headquarters move.    How do you spell ASSume again?  :


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Oct 2007)

A post at _The Torch_:

Afstan: NATO, Media, Poles Canadians
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/10/afstan-nato-media-poles-canadians.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Flip (13 Oct 2007)

Edward, I really liked this line.....


> they are trying to rewrite the historical record while the ink is still wet.


 ......thus creating a smear?  ;D

When the Democrats and media went after Carl Rove the effort was
focused on removing a critical Bush asset. Had nothing to do with
facts and everything to do with political strategy. ( I suspect )

I see the same here. Get rid of the CDS because he's good at his job.
He is, in effect a Harper asset and that puts a target on his back.
I'm sure if the liberals were in power there would be no problem with him.


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Oct 2007)

Another post at _The Torch_:

Looking forward in Afstan
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/10/looking-forward-in-afstan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (22 Oct 2007)

Afghan coalition an unequal burden
 TheStar.com -October 22, 2007 Olivia Ward FOREIGN AFFAIRS REPORTER
Article Link

Sharing load tough when `every country wants to feel its troops are doing a noble thing'

Canadians may think of our soldiers in Afghanistan as lone rangers, galloping over the Himalayan hills to single-handedly hold off bomb-wielding renegades.

But Canada provides about 2,500 of 41,000 troops from 37 nations in the International Security Assistance Force – a NATO-based coalition struggling for stability in an increasingly unstable landscape.

The bad news is that it's mostly a coalition of the unwilling. Countries have drawn a line in the sand, but keep to the safe side of the sandbags.

Those on the front lines of combat, like Canada, the United States, Britain and the Netherlands, call in vain for reinforcements. Those in the rear may boost their numbers, but only in areas where it's less likely their troops will be killed.

The disconnect worries not only Canadians, but military strategists who say that if Afghanistan is to avoid sliding back to failed statehood, all of its supporters must be marching to the same tune.

"What has to be done is a rethinking of national caveats, and getting more troops in who can actually do something," says Sibylle Scheipers, director of studies at the Changing Character of War program at the University of Oxford.

But, she warns, "bumping up troop levels won't work by itself. A coherent strategy is what's needed, and so far that is lacking."

Countries from Albania to Ukraine are contributing to the peace effort in Afghanistan, some to please more powerful allies, others to fulfill an obligation to NATO or to detour the killing fields of Iraq.

But their troops come with strings attached – enough to keep them tethered to low-risk posts.

"We would like to see no restrictions on what troops can do," says James Appathurai, a spokesperson at NATO's Brussels headquarters. "But there are some factors that make that difficult."

NATO doesn't publicize its contributors' rules of engagement, but some of the known prohibitions are hard to surmount. One country, for example, hasn't trained or equipped its soldiers to fight in snow. Another has transport aircraft unable to fly safely at night. 

Technical restrictions account for a small percentage of contributors' caveats. Most are concerned with the political risk of sending troops on combat, rather than "peacekeeping," missions. 

Politicians also worry about overstretching forces and upgrading rundown equipment. And threats and kidnappings by the Taliban and Al Qaeda have raised fears that contributing countries will be targeted. 
More on link


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Oct 2007)

A post at _The Torch_:

Baby steps for NATO on Afstan
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/10/baby-steps-for-nato-on-afstan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Oct 2007)

A letter of mine in the _Globe and Mail_:

The next President Clinton
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20071029/COLETTS29-8/Letters/commentLetters/commentLetters/4/4/16/



> MARK COLLINS
> 
> October 29, 2007 - page A22
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2007)

A good piece from The Torch, which provides a timeline of our operations in Kandahar and explains the reasoning behind Operation Medusa and why the PRT came into its own afterwards:

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/



> *The timeline to the real progress being made at Kandahar *
> 
> Read this excellent article, "Reflections on Canada’s first 18 Months in Kandahar and Prospects for the Future" (p.10 at link), in the Autumn 2007 issue of On Track, published by the Conference of Defence Associations Institute. Some excerpts:
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Oct 2007)

A doomsayer refuted:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2007_10_29.html#006279



> Michael Yon, today:
> 
> "Iraq is looking better month by month. But at the current rate, surely we shall fail in Afghanistan."
> 
> ...



Kind of reminds one of "the brutal Afghan winter".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/01/12/do1202.xml

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Nov 2007)

Ten years' minimum for foreigners:

Afghanistan at the Brink
NY Times, Roger Cohen, Nov. 1
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/opinion/01cohen.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin


> ...
> Since the Taliban’s fall in 2001, four million Afghan refugees have come home in one of the biggest post-1945 returns of people. About 38 percent of school students are girls, up from zero. Roads, clinics, mine-clearing and several million cellphones are changing Afghan lives.
> 
> All this may seem a decent return on about $22 billion of American investment since 2002. A further $5.6 billion is under review for 2008. The strategic aim is a stable Afghanistan that is no longer for rent by terrorists from one-eyed mullahs.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo (1 Nov 2007)

Good post Mark

Is Afghanistan capable of providing 72000 soldiers by the end of 2009?  Probably
Can the junior & senior leaders of the new ANA be brought up to scratch - in all facets of modern doctrine & operations? probably NOT!
This is not something you can do overnight - and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you a bill of goods!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Nov 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> This is not something you can do overnight - and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you a bill of goods!



Not overnight, just by the end of TF 3-08.  No big deal, right?


----------



## JBoyd (2 Nov 2007)

Truthfully, if we are there to help rebuild the nation then so be it, as long as its warrented by their government. If we are asked to stay to make sure they thrive then we should, we should feel it necessary as it would embodie all the virtues we hold dear. It is one thing to help stabilize a country , than it is to occupy. Which the vast majority of the uneducated (on the subject that is) civilian population seems to think is happening.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Nov 2007)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> Truthfully, if we are there to help rebuild the nation then so be it, as long as its warrented by their government. If we are asked to stay to make sure they thrive then we should, we should feel it necessary as it would embodie all the virtues we hold dear. It is one thing to help stabilize a country , than it is to occupy. Which the vast majority of the uneducated (on the subject that is) civilian population seems to think is happening.



Dude, pop smoke and bail while you can.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Dude, pop smoke and bail while you can.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2007)

Time lines I have used when speaking in public:

ANA: Two battalions on the ground in Kandahar today, expected to rise to 5 by the end of this ROTO (for people versed in military matters I explain these are essentially "motor" battalions with rifles and light/medium arms).
ANA Full control of Afghanistan: A decade
Microcredit programs to show effective results: 2-5 years while these women learn their trade and make a profit
Education: 10 years for the 6 million children to graduate and begin taking higher education or technical training
Higher education: 10 more years to reach critical mass of trained and educated professional and technical personnel
Rebuilding a nation: 20 years for Germany and Japan

Lots of work to do, and we should be there all the way since we essentially pledged ourselves for the task in 2002. The field force might not be needed after 2011 (maybe sooner, maybe later), but the other two "D"'s will need to keep going for decades to come.


----------



## pbi (4 Nov 2007)

JBoyd said:
			
		

> Truthfully, if we are there to help rebuild the nation then so be it, as long as its warrented by their government. If we are asked to stay to make sure they thrive then we should, we should feel it necessary as it would embodie all the virtues we hold dear. It is one thing to help stabilize a country , than it is to occupy. Which the vast majority of the uneducated (on the subject that is) civilian population seems to think is happening.



I think JB is actually trying to express a reasonable point of view here: it's pretty close to our official position on why Canada is there. And yes--it is one thing to be there to help stabilize, and quite another to be there just as an occupation force (although the two might not be automatically exclusive if the occupation force behaves itself and works toward stability and handover instead of just domination). JB just needs to tighten up his style a bit.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Nov 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> ....JB just needs to tighten up his style a bit.
> 
> Cheers



Good point pbi. I withdraw the snarky smiley.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Nov 2007)

Blowing Up Statues Of The Buddha All Over Again
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2007/11/blowing-up-statues-of-bhudda-all-over.html



> In the shoddy, shallow, squalid and grotesquely politicized "debate" in Canada about Afghanistan and the role of our military there, the one question that matters more than any other is how we can prevent the return of this kind of savagery, still wreaking its havoc just across the border in Pakistan:
> 
> Destroying statues of the Buddha. Threatening Christians with death unless they convert to Islam. Burning barber shops. Shutting down a UNICEF polio-vaccination program. Setting fire to stores that sell Indian and western movies. Dispatching suicide bombers to murder soldiers.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Nov 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Time lines I have used when speaking in public:
> 
> ANA: Two battalions on the ground in Kandahar today, expected to rise to 5 by the end of this ROTO (for people versed in military matters I explain these are essentially "motor" battalions with rifles and light/medium arms).
> ANA Full control of Afghanistan: A decade
> ...



Good breakdown, I keep telling people this is a generational war, this generation needs to get through school with an education that is useful. The Taliban understand that an educated population is determentail to their cause, hence schools and teachers are their targets along with any government infrastructure. funny to think that our left-wing socialists are backing a group that wishes to destroy government structure, which is a primary tool of socialist to promote their concept of society.


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Nov 2007)

A good piece in _The Independent_ (sub-head is a bit torqued):

Lest we forget
In Afghan fields, the poppies blow... and another British soldier dies in a war without end
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article3146457.ece



> ...The latest death occurred yesterday: a soldier serving with 36 Engineer Regiment was killed when his vehicle rolled off a bridge near Sangin in Helmand province, the scene of some of the most bitter fighting since British forces were sent to there early last year.
> 
> Although British troops in Helmand and the Canadians in Kandahar have regained some of the territory lost to the Taliban, they simply do not have the troops in numbers to hold the ground. As a result, repeated operations have to be undertaken to recapture strategic positions.
> 
> ...



A lovely rhyme about Curzon:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0016-7398%28198711%29153%3A3%3C343%3ACAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage



> My name is George Nathaniel Curzon
> I am a most superior person
> My hair is soft, my face is sleek,
> I dine at Blenheim once a week.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Nov 2007)

Randall lost the handle.  A letter just sent to the _Ottawa Citizen_:



> It is fine for Randall Denley to oppose the Canadian Forces' mission in Afghanistan ("Keep in mind the soldiers who are yet to die", Nov. 11).
> http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=a6cd7888-3e80-499b-b077-2ef3b466491b
> It is also fine for Mr Denley to note that our military have a bigger budget and a new prominence in the country--though writing that Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Hillier "is practically treated like a rock star" is a bit of a cheap shot. What however is not fine is to then write: "Sure, it's taken a few lives to accomplish all of this, but from the perspective of National Defence Headquarters, the costs have to look pretty modest compared to the gains."
> 
> So Mr Denley thinks the leaders of the Canadian Forces are quite happy to have our soldiers die in order to achieve their organizational goals. That is a disgraceful slur on those officers and on Gen. Hillier in particular.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Nov 2007)

Wow.  That is one of the worst articles I have seen in a long time


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (12 Nov 2007)

Agreed that it is a very poor article but unfortunately there are many out there of this same opinion.


----------



## Flip (12 Nov 2007)

Opinion is one thing, it is after all an opinion piece, but it's important
to point out the glaring disconnect with some basic facts.
I fired off an email pointing some stuff out, about some of obvious errors

Frankly, what's below is just plain misinformed.



> We have blundered into a fundamental change in our international role. We're no longer just peacekeepers and aid-bringers. We are now prepared to use our military as a foreign policy tool. We have become the kind of country that invades other countries, for their own good.



What he has written is an anti-war and anti-military rant.
His huffing and puffing in this direction has obscured any point he tried to make.
Sadly some people will swallow it.


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Nov 2007)

Scott Taylor is truly being economical with the truth:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/978084.html



> ...Step forward, NATO slackers.
> 
> That’s right: As Canada "punches above its weight" in Kandahar, we are not achieving complete success because other NATO countries are failing to do their bit for the alliance. The latest rallying cry of the Canadian tub-thumpers is that Afghanistan is NATO’s Waterloo and that if our partners don’t step up to the plate to win, we should consider cutting short our own commitment.
> 
> ...



What blinking spin.  Mr Taylor should stop making disingenuous excuses and listen to the Danish prime minister; the meaning behind some of his diplomatic phrasing is clear:



> Denmark's prime minister on Monday urged other NATO nations to send more troops and money to boost the alliance's operations in Afghanistan.
> 
> NATO has some 41,000 troops in Afghanistan, but commanders complain the mission lacks helicopters, mobile units and instructors to train the Afghan army. The alliance also needs *more quick-maneuver units to take control of territory won from the Taliban* [emphasis added--i.e. combat troops].
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Nov 2007)

Further to my comment here,
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-636253.html#msg636253

the _Ottawa Citizen_ published this version of the letter Nov. 13 after some negotiation with the letters' editor:

A cheap shot
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/letters/story.html?id=b4603d4f-ca1c-4d5f-9f07-aec5815a87d5



> Re: Keep in mind the soldiers who are yet to die, Nov. 11.
> 
> It is fine for columnist Randall Denley to oppose the Canadian Forces' mission in Afghanistan. It is also fine for Mr. Denley to point out that our military, as a result of the Afghan mission, have a bigger budget and a new prominence in the country -- his writing that Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier "is practically treated like a rock star" is a bit of a cheap shot.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## pbi (13 Nov 2007)

Here is an e-mail I sent:

Mr Denley: I just read your Nov 11 piece, and as a Canadian soldier who has served in Afghanistan, who has many comrades having served there (or who are there now), and who expects to serve there again in due course, I think you are using your bully pulpit rather badly.

Questioning the rationale behind our presence in Afghanistan is fine: so is the desire to see quantifiable results that the average Canadian can understand and evaluate. I have to admit that despite many efforts, many of them by those of us in uniform, our governments have generally done a poor job on either count. Your point: ""...Canadians don't take themselves and their country seriously enough to have an intelligent discussion about our role in the world, but it's time we started." is an excellent one with which most soldiers would agree without much question. I agree fully that rhetoric should not cloud an issue as important as our mission in Afghanistan. 

Unfortunately, in pursuing that debate you indulged in some pretty questionable pontificating and rhetoric yourself. Not content with casting your vote for the failure of the mission, you got in a few sharp digs at those of us who have the responsibility of leading the men and women of this country who volunteer to serve. I never thought of myself as a bloody handed-careerist climbing up the career ladder on a pile of skulls, but you have certainly enlightened me!

Beyond that sojourn into muck-slinging, you then ventured into an area in which you are quite clearly out of your depth: commenting on foreign policy. To make a silly, distorted statement like:

. We have blundered into a fundamental change in our international role. We're no longer just peacekeepers and aid-bringers. We are now prepared to use our military as a foreign policy tool. We have become the kind of country that invades other countries, for their own good."

reveals a rather weak grasp of fact. Canada has never, to the best of my knowledge, been "just a peacekeeper or aid bringer". Peacekeeping, much to the surprise of many Canadians such as yourself, has never been the primary focus of the Canadian Forces, nor has it been the top priority assigned to us by any Canadian government I have served under since 1974. Up until the early 90's, our primary overseas purpose was to be ready, as part of NATO, to fight the Warsaw Pact. In those days, there were always more Canadian soldiers and equipment stationed in Germany than in all of our contemporary UN missions put together. Our Air Force and our Navy were almost solely focused on NORAD or NATO roles. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and our withdrawal from Germany, the CF participated in combat roles in Iraq and Kosovo, neiither of which was a peacekeeping mission. Our experiences in Croatia and Somalia reminded us that well trained and equipped  combat troops are esssential for any peace support mission other than the most benign. Perhaps that is the reason that the overwhelming majority of my career, as well as that of my peers, has been spent on educating and preparing ourselves to operate in the entire spectrum of conflict, not just the "safe" low end of high-consensus peacekeeping. Not training to be a "peacekeeper" or "aid giver", although we can take those tasks in stride as required. Sadly, having served on a number of these UN peace support missions, I can only attest to the relative ineffectiveness, inefficiency and corrupt wastefulness of many of them, as can numbers of my peers.

As a professional military, we understand far better than most Canadians the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan, and admit freely and openly that the long term solutuion can utlimately only arrive through development and diplomacy. But, along the way, varying degrees of military effort will be required to support the other instruments. History and analysis both make this pretty clear. We understand, as Gen Hillier has articulated, that it will be a long haul, but that fact alone neither makes the mission wrong nor cheapens the deaths of our comrades in the way that you so ill-advisedly chose Nov 11 to attempt.


Cheers


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Nov 2007)

pbi: Wow.  I'm sending it to the letters' editor, for his information.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (13 Nov 2007)

excellent letter....very well articulated. It won't change his mind one iota cause people like him have and agenda but if it gets printed it just may get a few other folks thinking,,,well said BZ


----------



## pbi (13 Nov 2007)

Thanks. I should have hit spell check before "SEND", but WTF. Articles like his make me angry: which, I suppose, is his objective.

Cheers


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Nov 2007)

Are the Canadian Forces' leaders blood-sucking careerists? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/11/are-canadian-forces-leaders-blood.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Flip (13 Nov 2007)

> It won't change his mind one iota cause people like him have and agenda but if it gets printed it just may get a few other folks thinking,,,well said BZ



If it does get printed - great! - It deserves too.

If it doesn't - It serves another perfectly valid purpose.
Even people with an agenda don't like it when their fiction is pointed out
for what it is. It's pretty clear he has very few supporting facts.

It is my personal quest to do what I can to make writing this kind of.......
flotsam more painful than it's worth. If glaring omissions and errors
are a constant irritant, he might be deterred.  If he is provoked, excellent!
Maybe he'll write something really stupid. ( his column came close)
Or if you believe in miracles( I do ) he and his kind may learn something.

All  the same - my hearty congrats to all who write. ;D

Cheers all!

P.S. I like to write, if only to collect my thoughts and see if I've got 
what I think I've got....


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Nov 2007)

Well, until those chimerical extra NATO combat troops show up in any numbers, quite a bit of bombing will be needed though of course it can be done better in some ways.  But, to be realistic, the total number of civilian deaths caused by NATO and coalition forces does not seem all that great in a country of some 25-30 million (though of course civilian fatalities are concentrated in the south and east).

Losing Afghanistan, One Civilian at a Time
_Washington Post_, Nov. 18, By Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601203.html


> ...
> Last year was the worst year for civilian casualties since the fall of the country's cruel Taliban regime, and 2007 is shaping up to be even worse. The most alarming point: *As of July, more civilians had died as a result of NATO, U.S. and Afghan government firepower than had died due to the Taliban. According to U.N. figures, 314 civilians were killed by international and Afghan government forces in the first six months of this year, while 279 civilians were killed by the insurgents* [emphasis added].
> 
> So why on Earth are the NATO and U.S. forces and their Afghan allies killing more civilians than the Taliban? One explanation can be found in the relatively low number of Western boots on the ground. Afghanistan, which is 1 1/2 times the size of Iraq and has a somewhat larger population, has only about 50,000 U.S. and NATO soldiers stationed on its soil. By contrast, more than 170,000 U.S. troops are now in Iraq. So the West has to rely far more heavily on airstrikes in Afghanistan, which inevitably exact a higher toll in civilian casualties. Indeed, the Associated Press found that U.S. and NATO forces launched more than 1,000 airstrikes in Afghanistan in the first six months of 2007 alone -- four times as many airstrikes as U.S. forces carried out in Iraq during that period.
> ...



Now a pessimistic view from the Senlis Council (note civilian casualities)--hard on NATO allies, not Canada:
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/277498



> The Canadian death toll in Afghanistan rose by two yesterday amid the disclosure of grim new findings that suggest the resurgent Taliban is making dramatic territorial gains in the pivotal struggle for Kandahar.
> 
> A majority of Afghans in the embattled southern province believe that Canada's footprint is shrinking as Taliban insurgents "make the rules" of travel through greater swaths of territory, according to a survey conducted by the Senlis Council, one of the few Western research organizations still travelling Kandahar's risk-prone roads.
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/09/afstan-jaw-jaw.html
> ...



More pessimism, from an American living in Kandahar:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111601204.html



> Wednesday, Oct. 31: I woke to the sound of artillery thudding -- like the beat of a heavy heart. It was Afghan army batteries firing into Arghandab, at new Taliban positions there. Through several nights, I had been listening, my ears pricking like a dog's, to the faint popping of gunfire, the clattering of helicopters, the whine of personnel carriers speeding along the roads, falling asleep only when the morning call to prayer rang out in the pre-dawn chill.
> 
> I can't explain how this felt, the penetration of war to this crucial part of Kandahar, where I have lived for six years. Arghandab district, with its riot of tangled fruit trees, is the lung of Kandahar province; its meandering, stone-studded river is the artery of the whole region. Arghandab is shade and water, and mud-walled orchards, and mulberries and apricots, and pomegranates the size of grapefruits hanging from the willowy branches...
> 
> ...



Sorry for the massive comment, but lot's of food for thought.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Nov 2007)

> ...that had in fact transpired, in my view, was a deft, successful psychological operations action by the Taliban. Their attack on Arghandab was designed to communicate, and it did -- eloquently. It said that they are here [emphasis added]...



And I would offer that the ANSF response was "so are we".  Imagine the Afghans doing such an operation a year ago, during Medusa.  They were able to keep the Taliban in that area, though of course they needed help to finish clearing the area.  I was wowed by that when I heard of the ANSF response to the Taliban.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Nov 2007)

Extracted from an On-Line Discussion at the Globe and Mail

I didn't see reference to this exchange on the board.  I believe, given some of my own comments as well as those of others that it deserves an airing.  In it Professor Stein does a very creditable job of explaining her position - a position I think that most here would agree with.



> *Allan Eizinas, Simcoe, Ont*.: Hello, Ms. Stein, thank you for co-writing The Unexpected War. I found it very easy to read and exceptionally informative.
> 
> The Afghan war and the Canadian involvement in it has become a very emotional and partisan issue, making it very difficult to glean the bare facts and follow an accurate chronology of events.
> 
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (22 Nov 2007)

Janice Gross Stein, CM, FRSC is a Canadian academic
+1

Yes it was a delight to read the discussion she held online at the G&M. This is one academic who knows her stuff and that includes Afghanistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Stein


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Nov 2007)

A post at _The Torch_:

Dutch very likely to stay in Afstan until 2010 (and a whole lot more)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/11/dutch-very-likely-to-stay-in-afstan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Nov 2007)

Conference of Defence Associations submission to Manley panel (pdf):
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/Policy_Statements/IndepPanelAfghanistanNov2007.pdf

Manley panel in Afstan:
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjaNsGAPchmGkHhIJLhsNn7xHl1w

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Dec 2007)

William Arkin of the _Washington Post_ makes a good defence of air power:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/12/afghanistan_commander_bombs_li.html



> Winter came none too soon to Afghanistan this year. The snows and rough weather tend to impede the Taliban and give technological advantage to U.S. and coalition forces. And this year, the most violent since the fall of the Taliban, a momentary respite is especially needed.
> 
> One of the main storylines coming out of Afghanistan this year involved civilian casualties from U.S. and NATO airstrikes. It's a storyline the military should be able to counter, but hasn't - which means a win for the Taliban in the information war.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## TacticalW (16 Dec 2007)

Before we came the Afghanese civilians were being ruled by the Taliban. Civilians didn't really have rights, living conditions were atrocious and the many horrible atrocities the Taliban have made there during their ruling were grim. Afghanistan was one of the last places anybody wanted to be in. We could've stood by and watched while their lives continued on this course, but no - we took action and made the attempt to stop this injustice. Now we are fighting for the cause of the Afghanese, to rebuild Afghanistan, stabilize their economy and make their lives better. In the midst of it we are taking on casualties for this cause, but that's the consequence of "doing something about it". Fighting injustice often costs something and there isn't any better way to hit the bucket than fighting for something you believe in, and in this case freedom and a good quality of life for the people of Afghanistan. One could argue about collateral damage and so on, but such is a part of the consequences for getting rid of such injustice and for the hard times felt now, there will be a better life for them and their children. 

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing"
My favorite quote.


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 Dec 2007)

TacticalW said:
			
		

> Before we came the Afghanese civilians were being ruled by the Taliban. Civilians didn't really have rights, living conditions were atrocious and the many horrible atrocities the Taliban have made there during their ruling were grim. Afghanistan was one of the last places anybody wanted to be in. We could've stood by and watched while their lives continued on this course, but no - we took action and made the attempt to stop this injustice. Now we are fighting for the cause of the Afghanese, to rebuild Afghanistan, stabilize their economy and make their lives better. In the midst of it we are taking on casualties for this cause, but that's the consequence of "doing something about it". Fighting injustice often costs something and there isn't any better way to hit the bucket than fighting for something you believe in, and in this case freedom and a good quality of life for the people of Afghanistan. One could argue about collateral damage and so on, but such is a part of the consequences for getting rid of such injustice and for the hard times felt now, there will be a better life for them and their children.
> 
> "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing"
> My favorite quote.



That is really a nice piece of revisionist history you are feeding yourself there but the fact is that we (the world) did sit around and watch the Taleban grind Afghanistan into a societal pulp.  

The only reason we went in was because some very bad men had attacked us from Afghanistan with the knowledge of and acceptance of the Government of Afghanistan.  We didn't really give a rats posterior what the Taleban did in Afgh before that, and the only cause we are really fighting for in Afghanistan now is our self-interest to not have this country used by the bad men again.

Yes, yes it's all very warm and fuzzy to claim that we are there to right the wrongs but if that was really the case and our governments and the world worked like that then we would already have troops in Darfur, the UN would have a standing army and posses a sort of super sovereignty above and beyond that of nations.

I absolutely agree that we are fighting the good fight for the right reasons in Afghanistan, and those reasons include everything you said, but to claim that those ideals are the inspiration and cause of this war is willful self-deception.


----------



## observor 69 (16 Dec 2007)

I think this pretty well ties in with Reccesoldier's thoughts:
http://tinyurl.com/39jp9c ,  New York Times


December 16, 2007
Afghan Mission Is Reviewed as Concerns Rise 
By THOM SHANKER and STEVEN LEE MYERS
WASHINGTON — Deeply concerned about the prospect of failure in Afghanistan, the Bush administration and NATO have begun three top-to-bottom reviews of the entire mission, from security and counterterrorism to political consolidation and economic development, according to American and alliance officials. 

The reviews are an acknowledgment of the need for greater coordination in fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, halting the rising opium production and trafficking that finances the insurgency and helping the Kabul government extend its legitimacy and control. 

Taken together, these efforts reflect a growing apprehension that one of the administration’s most important legacies — the routing of Taliban and Qaeda forces in Afghanistan after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — may slip away, according to senior administration officials. 

Unlike the administration’s sweeping review of Iraq policy a year ago, which was announced with great fanfare and ultimately resulted in a large increase in troops, the American reviews of the Afghan strategy have not been announced and are not expected to result in a similar infusion of combat forces, mostly because there are no American troops readily available.

The administration is now committed to finding an international coordinator, described as a “super envoy,” to synchronize the full range of efforts in Afghanistan, and to continue pressing for more NATO troops to fight an insurgency that made this the most violent year since the Taliban and Al Qaeda were routed in December 2001. 

“We are looking for ways to gain greater strategic coherence,” said a senior administration official involved in the review process.

One assessment is being conducted within the United States military. Adm. William J. Fallon, commander of American forces in the Middle East, has ordered a full review of the mission, including the covert hunt for Taliban and Qaeda leaders. 

“It’s an assessment of our current strategy and how we are doing,” said a senior military officer. “It’s looking at whether we’ve done enough or need to do more in terms of expanding governance and economic development, as well as wrestling with the difficult security issues that we have been dealing with in Afghanistan.” 

Senior State Department officials also said that R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, was coordinating another internal assessment of diplomatic efforts and economic aid — the sorts of “soft power” assistance beyond combat force that officials agree are required for success. 

A third review, one that has previously been part of the public discussion, involves the strategy of NATO, which last year assumed control of the security operation in Afghanistan and has since been criticized by American officials and lawmakers for not being aggressive enough. 

At an alliance meeting in Scotland on Friday, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates successfully gained a commitment from NATO to produce what senior Pentagon officials called an “integrated plan” for Afghanistan.

“The intent is to get people to look beyond 2008 and realize this is a longer-term endeavor,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, who was with Mr. Gates in Scotland. He said the plan would “start off by acknowledging the success we’re having in terms of reconstruction and education and governance and so forth, but it also will state where we want to be in three to five years, and how we get there.” 

The NATO assessment is to be completed for a meeting of alliance heads of state in Bucharest, Romania, next spring. The other reviews are due early next year. 

Publicly, administration officials have expressed optimism that the war in Afghanistan can be won, but Mr. Gates told Congress this week that his optimism was “tempered by caution.” 

In recent months, though, Mr. Bush’s senior advisers have expressed a growing unease.

While there is a sense that this year’s troop buildup in Iraq has turned around a dire situation, the effort in Afghanistan has begun to drift, at best, officials said. That prompted Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, to oversee internal deliberations that resulted in the push for the new reviews.

The NATO-led security assistance mission in Afghanistan has about 40,000 troops; of those, 14,000 are American. Separately, the United States military has 12,000 other troops in Afghanistan conducting specialized counterterrorism missions.

Mr. Gates has declined to name specific allies that have not fulfilled pledges for combat troops, security trainers and helicopters for Afghanistan, or whose governments have placed restrictions on their combat forces. But he has noted that Britain, Canada and Australia had met their commitments and carry their full combat load.

Some members of Congress have not been so diplomatic.

“The Germans, the Spanish, the Italians don’t send any troops to the south except for 250 troops by Germany,” said Representative Joe Sestak, Democrat of Pennsylvania. A retired three-star admiral who worked on the staff of the National Security Council in the 1990s, Mr. Sestak complained that some allies “refuse to do combat ops at night and some don’t fly when the first snowflake falls.”

As part of the NATO review, alliance diplomats and military officers are closely watching the actions of Britain, which may be able to commit additional troops to Afghanistan as it reduces its deployments in Iraq.

To that end, Britain has opened its own “strategic review” of the Afghan mission, especially in the turbulent southern provinces, which will shape the alliance’s assessment, according to a senior diplomat of a NATO nation.

“Essentially what’s driving it is that a year ago, we were regarding Afghanistan as an outstanding success — we established democracy, we were in control of many parts of the country,” the NATO diplomat said. “Now we have significant issues with certain areas producing opium and the Taliban coming back in certain parts of the country, as well.”

The Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, was more direct in assessing possible failure in Afghanistan.

“I have a real concern that given our preoccupation in Iraq, we’ve not devoted sufficient troops and funding to Afghanistan to ensure success in that mission,” Mr. Skelton said. “Afghanistan has been the forgotten war.”

Strained by commitments in Iraq, the American military has few troops available to expand its forces in Afghanistan. “It is simply a matter of resources, of capacity,” Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress this week. “In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must.”

Both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Mr. Gates have urged Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, to consider proposals for eradicating poppy fields by aerial spraying to halt the rapid increase in opium production. But the Afghan president has thus far rejected the idea, and even American officials admit that vastly increased eradication efforts would be counterproductive unless alternative livelihoods were immediately available to the poppy farmers.

The Karzai government also is said to be reluctant to endorse having an international coordinator with expanded powers, fearing its own legitimacy and credibility could be undermined.

Julianne Smith, director of the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the mission in Afghanistan was at risk of failure, as political support in European capitals strained NATO’s ability to sustain, let alone expand its effort there.

“The mission in Afghanistan has been suffering from neglect on all sides,” she said.


----------



## geo (16 Dec 2007)

TacticalW said:
			
		

> Before we came the Afghanese civilians were being ruled by the Taliban. Civilians didn't really have rights, living conditions were atrocious and the many horrible atrocities the Taliban have made there during their ruling were grim. Afghanistan was one of the last places anybody wanted to be in. We could've stood by and watched while their lives continued on this course, but no - we took action and made the attempt to stop this injustice. Now we are fighting for the cause of the Afghanese, to rebuild Afghanistan, stabilize their economy and make their lives better. In the midst of it we are taking on casualties for this cause, but that's the consequence of "doing something about it". Fighting injustice often costs something and there isn't any better way to hit the bucket than fighting for something you believe in, and in this case freedom and a good quality of life for the people of Afghanistan. One could argue about collateral damage and so on, but such is a part of the consequences for getting rid of such injustice and for the hard times felt now, there will be a better life for them and their children.
> 
> "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing"
> My favorite quote.



As Reccesoldier has said... with small change.... 
we are in Afghanistan for the following reasons:
1.  People from inside Afghanistan & with support of Taliban gov't attacked one of our closest allies & as per our NORAD/NATO obligations, we came to their defence.  We took our fight to the ennemy.
2.  The US & us found that there was such a thing as the "Northern alliance that was fighting the Taliban.  We supported the Northern alliance & with their support, Afghanistan's Taliban gov't was overthrown.   The NA appointed a gov't and following a Loya Jirga (Tribal Grand Council) the Karzai government was elected & vetted as the legitimate government of the Afghan people.
3.  The Karzai Gov't has asked NATO for armed help to stabilize his country & aid them in ridding Afghanistan of it's terrorist Taliban.


----------



## Franko (16 Dec 2007)

TacticalW said:
			
		

> Now we are fighting for the cause of the Afghanese, to rebuild Afghanistan, stabilize their economy and make their lives better.



They are called Afghans by the way. 

Afghanis (which you spelled incorrectly)is the name of their currency.

You may want to include that in your revisionist diatribe next time.

Regards


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Dec 2007)

A post at _The Torch_:

Why I say "no" to Byers
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-i-say-no-to-byers.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop (16 Dec 2007)

Okay, why are we piling on TacW?  Sure, there is a bit of naive in there, but I would like to think that helping people isn't _TOTALLY_ out of the realm of possibility?  
Perhaps our cynicism filters are getting a bit clogged.


----------



## TacticalW (16 Dec 2007)

Yes, sorry for the typo. I'm well aware that we went in for reasons other than for the cause of the citizens and that we are there because we had obligations with NATO, but what we're "doing there now" is the right thing. To stop it, would be a damn fine crime and especially with no one being able to replace us as of yet. Right now we have small progress, but we have "some" progress. It'll take some more years for the ANA to be a big enough force to take care of itself and as for all of the details and stability - that'll take even longer let alone putting standards up to what people have in strong developed countries. But hey, progress is being done and this kind of war has been won and been succesfull before - so of course it is possible with plenty of effort. 

I may have had a few beers before I made that post but yeah, admittedly we "didn't" come there for the best of reasons and yes our history with foreign affairs often-times wasn't pretty but of course now, us being there is the what's best for the Afghan people and leaving would have disastrous consequences for everyone. 

Well anyways, you know my opinion and why. Well, I'm hoping we take a more aggressive stance when it comes to some of the situations certain countries find themselves in. At least now our military capabilities are better and we in fact "have" the resources to be more involved. There's plenty of disappointment to go around, but I'm hoping for a change of habit when it comes to our decisions when countries in need of help are involved.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Dec 2007)

Helping the Afghans is part of the "3D" strategy, and certainly required to prevent the Taliban and AQ fron re establishing themselves, regardless of what initially impelled us into Afghanistan in the first place. 


http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-to-fix-city.html



> *How to Fix a City*
> 
> ... in Afghanistan:
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Dec 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> A post at _The Torch_:
> 
> Why I say "no" to Byers
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-i-say-no-to-byers.html
> ...



Henry Kissinger famously asked if we understood why academic disputes are so bitter. The answer he said is because the stakes are so low.

Here is a rare public glimpse of the bitter debate amongst academics – specifically the _esteemed_ Prof. Byers:

(Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Ottawa Citizen.)
 http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/letters/story.html?id=a8229693-6a9c-4571-b1fb-07ad6b103c8d


> Low standards
> 
> The Ottawa Citizen
> Published: Monday, December 17, 2007
> ...



Link to Michael Hart:  http://www.carleton.ca/ctpl/about/people_hart.html

Link to Michael Byers: http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/?p2=/modules/liu/profiles/profile.jsp&id=8


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Dec 2007)

E.R. Campbell: Thanks for putting up Prof. Hart's letter.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Dec 2007)

US reviews Afstan policy--looks like the country is starting to get the high-level (and US media) attention it needs:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121601823_2.html



> With violence on the decline in Iraq but on the upswing in Afghanistan, President Bush is facing new pressure from the U.S. military to accelerate a troop drawdown in Iraq and bulk up force levels in Afghanistan, according to senior U.S. officials.
> 
> Administration officials said the White House could start to debate the future of the American military commitment in both Iraq and Afghanistan as early as next month. Some Pentagon officials are urging a further drawdown of forces in Iraq beyond that envisioned by the White House, which is set to reduce the number of combat brigades from 20 to 15 by the end of next summer. At the same time, commanders in Afghanistan are looking for several additional battalions, helicopters and other resources to confront a resurgent Taliban movement.
> 
> ...



Meanwhile William Arkin has another provocative piece on the role of air power in Afstan, with lots of statistics and this interesting paragraph:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/12/in_afghanistan_its_about_air_p.html?nav=rss_blog



> As A-10 and F-15E air strikes have increased, U.S. forces have undertaken a variety of innovative efforts to reduce collateral damage and civilian casualties. Three less destructive weapons are now regularly being employed by U.S. forces: a new 250-lb. "small diameter bomb," the smallest bomb in the U.S. arsenal in the last three decades; a cleverly designed 500-lb. precision bomb; and a concrete-filled bomb -- called a 500-lb. "rock" -- that does not explode but can destroy structures. Pilots have also learned a variety of techniques for attacks around villages and urban areas, including ways to "fuse" the bombs to detonate inside structures to reduce the radius of blast.



Though I don't think I can agree with his conclusion; someone (the Afghans themselves) has to provide local security once territory is cleared:



> In short, the war in Afghanistan has largely returned to its 2001 origins, when a combination of special operations forces on the ground calling in air power quickly defeated the Taliban armies. This doesn't mean ground forces are less important; the most effective combination is to have "eyes on the ground" making U.S. air power more effective. Yet despite the strategic review and the call for more troops, nothing dramatic is likely to happen "on the ground" in Afghanistan before the Bush administration leaves office. That is because the drama is not on the ground. To understand the war in Afghanistan, look up in skies.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Dec 2007)

The Aussies weigh in to the debate (usual copyright disclaimer):
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22934596-601,00.html



> *AUSTRALIA'S NATO partners must lift their game in Afghanistan, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says*.
> 
> "Unless we stabilise Afghanistan we have got problems beyond those that we experience at the moment," Mr Rudd said during a break in his first cabinet meeting today.
> 
> ...



Wish we had such governmental frankness and clarity here.  Compare with this "frankness":
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2007/12/17/harper-government-s-shame-game-on-nato-allies-backfires.aspx

HARPER GOVERNMENT’S ‘SHAME GAME’ ON NATO ALLIES BACKFIRES


> ...
> Here are the behind-the-scenes details as they were explained to me by NATO officers. This year and last year the Harper government went into overtime crapping on its NATO allies for not providing additional soldiers to the Afghan mission. Gordon O’Connor, Mr. MacKay and Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier were high profile in the media dumping on various countries for not pulling their weight.
> 
> It is true that some in the alliance were shunning combat, but publicly slamming your allies is not how diplomacy works.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (17 Dec 2007)

As an aside in the last few days I have seen the term "stalemate" used to describe the present state of ISAF operations in Afghanistan.
Primarily in the context of the US military's growing belief that there are not enough personnel ISAF/US in country to gain the upper hand in this insurgency war.
Unfortunately in spite of our good works and efforts my fear is that a stalemate is occurring and if ya ain't winning then your loosing. 
The bad guys have time on their side and it looks like that is an issue for the ISAF member countries.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (18 Dec 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> HARPER GOVERNMENT’S ‘SHAME GAME’ ON NATO ALLIES BACKFIRES
> Mark
> Ottawa



Yes it never worked on the Trudeau and Chretien government during the years when their defence spending was  a joke compared to other NATO countries either. It didn't stop them from crapping on Canada at every opportunity they could. I wouldn't sweat it too much...it's all political bluster from a bunch of politicians who are refusing to step up. I don't think the sugar coated version would have worked either. at least a spade has been called a spade.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Dec 2007)

At a recent University of Ottawa symposium, upon which I commented, at length, the subject of the unbearably low quality of policy _advice_ being proffered to ministers was raised.

I discussed this with a couple of chaps who know, intimately, how it was done for Trudeau, Mulroney and Chrétien. Both agreed that policy advice has been going downhill, steadily, since the _golden days_ of the ‘50s and ‘60s and both agreed that Harper has good reason to mistrust the *quality* of the advice he is getting.

*But*: both were horrified at Harper’s idea that the advice was politically partisan. Trudeau had a very similar thought,* by the way, and that’s one of the reasons he gutted the External Affairs department. Mulroney had exactly the same thought – so he continued to gut the department – undoing some of Trudeau’s worst excesses but not making anything any better. Ditto Chrétien, who appeared to believe that the _Oxbridge_ crowd (which he hated as much as Trudeau did) had returned. The end result is that we appear to have managed to _transform_ one of the world’s best foreign services into one of the worst in one generation – that sort of policy vandalism ought to be recognized as the bipartisan effort it was, and is, still.

Anyway, I stand by my “NATO was the cornerstone of our foreign policy, but now it’s a stumbling block” thesis. But: NATO *IS* the key player in Afghanistan and we have to find ways to make it effective – or else we will suffer a humiliating and quite unnecessary defeat – a 3D defeat, at that. If that happens you can rest 99.9% assured that DND will get most of the blame.

----------
* Trudeau’s problem was that _External_ was, in his view, a nest of _Anglophilic_, pro-American _cold warriors_ who would try to sabotage the policy he planned to implement. He was right – at least he was within his (distorted) world view.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Dec 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> A post at _The Torch_:
> 
> Why I say "no" to Byers
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-i-say-no-to-byers.html
> ...




Another respected and respectable academic slags Michael Byers in this _opinion_ piece reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=ad844111-2f84-459d-86f2-2eba2a11a736


> Elinor Sloan . A better Afghanistan policy
> 
> *Elinor Sloan*
> Citizen Special
> ...




I think we saw, in Prof. Byers’ little diatribe, the NDP’s strategy: _delegitimize_ (what an awful word!) the Manley Commission because it is bound to recommend that we “stay the course.” I also think Prof. Sloan has debunked that strategy.

Honest men and women can and will disagree about we can, should or should not do about, with, for or to Afghanistan; that’s how things work in a democracy. Dishonest men and women will try to subvert the discussion for their own ideological (anti-capitalist and anti-American) ends; that’s how things are done in socialist “peace-loving peoples’ democratic republics” – the sort of construct the NDP wants to impose on Canada.


----------



## Cheshire (18 Dec 2007)

Mr Campbell...



> Trudeau had a very similar thought,* by the way, and that's one of the reasons he gutted the External Affairs department. Mulroney had exactly the same thought – so he continued to gut the department – undoing some of Trudeau's worst excesses but not making anything any better. Ditto Chrétien, who appeared to believe that the Oxbridge crowd (which he hated as much as Trudeau did) had returned. The end result is that we appear to have managed to transform one of the world's best foreign services into one of the worst in one generation



Sounds familiar. Swap External Affairs with Canadian Forces.....One of the worlds best military's into one of the most underfunded, under equipped in a generation. At least Harper is is trying to correct to the one.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Dec 2007)

Cheshire said:
			
		

> Mr Campbell...
> 
> Sounds familiar. Swap External Affairs with Canadian Forces.....One of the worlds best military's into one of the most underfunded, under equipped in a generation. *At least Harper is is trying to correct to the one*.



We hope.

It took about a dozen years to really "do in" the CF (1963± to 1975± in my guesstimation) but it will take more than twice that to repair the damage.

I think we have to give Paul Martin credit for _initiating_ the good things – including appointing Gen. Hillier to be CDS. It remains to be seen if Prime Minister Harper has the political _room_ or, in fact, the will, to carry on the process.

I’ll repeat what Ruxted said: *we are going to need a $30+ Billion defence budget in just a very few years* – when DND is hoping for $20 Billion. *Anything less*, I suggest, means that the “decades of darkness” return and we end up disarming by stealth.

I’m not at all sure that Prime Minister Harper is willing to expend much political capital on national defence – it’s not a popular, vote getting issue in Canada (remember, please, that only the CF is at war; the Canadian people are at peace). I am pretty sure that that he will not spend enough political capital to reach what I believe to be the minimally acceptable standards before he has a solid majority government and not, perhaps, until he has a second mandate.


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Dec 2007)

Byers v. Manley.  Byers wrote in his piece:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=2d0badd3-a46c-4c97-aea3-5f464f9b6ef9&p=2



> And little room has been allowed for serious consideration of whether NATO troops should be replaced with UN peacekeepers.



I wonder if the professor will notice this:

U.N. Finds Fraud, Mismanagement in Peacekeeping
Task Force Says 'Multiple Instances' of Corruption Have a Cost of $610 Million
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/17/AR2007121701914.html

Byers also wrote:



> Mr. Tellier headed up Bombardier when it was heavily involved in training pilots for the Canadian Forces and other NATO countries [NFTC].



I'm amazed that Byers missed the fact that Bombardier has sold aircraft to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Air and Marine Office.
http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/pressrelease.jsp%3Fgroup%3D3_0%26lan%3Den%26action%3Dview%26mode%3Dlist%26year%3Dnull%26id%3D4724%26sCateg%3D3_0

Much more damning I'd say (part of the evil Homeland Security Dept.) than running NFTC.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Dec 2007)

What to read about Canada and Afghanistan?  Prof. Barry Cooper prefers, I think, Christie Blatchford to Eugene Lang and Janice Stein (usual copyright disclaimer).
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=78db46fd-799d-4ece-9f55-17e1af2bf8da


> ...
> The first, by University of Toronto professor Janice Stein and the former chief of staff to a couple of Liberal defence ministers, Eugene Lang, is called The Unexpected War. Despite the authors' discretion, this account of defence policy during the past two Liberal governments is hair-raising.
> 
> Most Canadians expect defence and foreign policy to promote and defend Canadian national interests. It is as clear as can be from this book the two ministers Lang served, John McCallum and Bill Graham, were more concerned with promoting the interests of the Liberal party than those of the nation, and in deflecting responsibility to senior diplomatic and military leaders when inevitably their ill-considered policies failed.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (19 Dec 2007)

The two books are quite different. The Stein and Lang book is a description of how we ended up in Kandahar and ISAF.
Whereas Christie is telling us about the experiences of our troops on the ground in Afghanistan.
Both fine books, both having their own purpose and goals. 
Buy and enjoy them both. Or visit your local library as I did.


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Dec 2007)

Strange stuff from the CBC's person in D.C.: Henry Champ today on Newsworld was saying odd things (can't find a video link) about Canada's being critical of the US for slacking off on ground combat in Afstan out of fear of casualties. He never mentioned that the US are doing the great majority of fighting in the east, he just said we are not happy with their "boots on the ground" effort in the south. Especially odd thing to say since this is the final paragraph of the CBC News story on Foreign Minister Bernier's visit to Washington today:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/12/20/bush-afghan.html



> An analysis done by ABC News in November showed the death rate for U.S. troops in Afghanistan is now nearly twice the rate for those in Iraq.



What Canadian was Mr Champ talking to and what was Mr Champ smoking?

Note the kind words from the secretary of state and the president:



> Rice called Canada an "extraordinary partner" in the NATO-led war in Afghanistan.
> 
> While there has been concern about some NATO countries not taking on their fair share of responsibilities in Afghanistan, Rice said this is not the case with Canada.
> 
> ...



Pity he didn't mention the Poles, Romanians and Estonians.

M. Bernier was to my mind hopeless. He didn't answer questions, just regurgitated talking points of dubious relevance.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Dec 2007)

Mark, I noticed Champ's "Opinion Piece" as well.  I was making lunch at the time and happened to click on to Newsworld.   After about 42 seconds of that nonsense I chose to find something else to watch.  I didn't wish to upset my digestion on further.


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Dec 2007)

Mr Champ was just on Newsworld's "Politics" and repeated (17:40 Eastern) the claim that Canada thinks the US is not fighting hard enough on the ground. He said he had it from both Canadian and American sources. Weird. The video should be available here fairly soon.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/index.html#ondemand

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Dec 2007)

If that is true it sounds like someone is developing a bad case of tunnel-vision.

I wonder how they would categorize the 82nd's involvement at Musa Qala with the Royal Marines, the Danes, the Estonians and the ANA.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Dec 2007)

A post at _The Torch_:

I wonder what M. Dion thinks...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-wonder-what-m-dion-thinks.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Dec 2007)

Looks like US will something serious about the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan:

U.S. Troops to Head to Pakistan
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/12/musharrafs_woes_have_opened_a.html#more



> Beginning early next year, U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan, as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counter-insurgency forces and clandestine counterterrorism units, according to defense officials involved with the planning.
> 
> These Pakistan-centric operations will mark a shift for the U.S. military and for U.S. Pakistan relations. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the U.S. used Pakistani bases to stage movements into Afghanistan. Yet once the U.S. deposed the Taliban government and established its main operating base at Bagram, north of Kabul, U.S. forces left Pakistan almost entirely. Since then, Pakistan has restricted U.S. involvement in cross-border military operations as well as paramilitary operations on its soil.
> 
> ...



More here:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/67704/post-638627.html#msg638627

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Dec 2007)

PM Harper speaks out:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071226.wharper1226/BNStory/National/home



> Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he is uncertain whether Canadians at large understand the importance of remaining involved in Afghanistan.
> 
> His observation in a recent year-end interview with The Canadian Press comes after almost two years of combat operations in Kandahar, the deaths of 73 soldiers and one diplomat, and bitter, often partisan debates back home.
> 
> ...



If you have the stomach, look at the "Comments" at the _Globe and Mail_.  
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071226.wharper1226/CommentStory/National/home

Two recent ones:



> G Money  from Hamilton, Canada writes: People don't understand whent they aren't entirely informed. Take for example the pipe line Mr. Karzai's former employer wants to run from southern Russia to Pakistan through Afghanistan. No pacification = no pipe line. That's all it's about. It's not about popular freedom, it's about corporate freedom.





> Paul Chislett  from Windsor, Canada writes: Mr. Harper, I "get" Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. It is a criminal occupation of a foreign country at the behest of the criminal Bush regime in Washington. I demand our troops out now and that you, sir, cease playing warlord.



My response to the first comment above:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071226.wharper1226/CommentStory/National/home#comment1548964



> ...(Mark Collins, from Ottawa, Canada) wrote:  G Money: Here's a letter of mine in the Ottawa Sun, April 25 (no longer available online):
> 
> 'In his letter of April 23, Albert Bertrand claims that the war in Afghanistan is about American "access to the petroleum from Central Asia."
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Flip (26 Dec 2007)

And here's my submission.

What I read here is mostly a lot of cheap shots at our PM.
They might be what proves him right.
I have to ask, what do you desire instead?
How would acheive that goal?

To withdraw from Afghanistan WILL NOT cause peace or anything like it.
So to declare that Canada's involvment is a bad thing is useless.

What Canadian and Afghans desire cannot be achieved by simply sending soldiers home. To suggest so PROVES beyond doubt that all of the whinging
is done by people who don't "get it".

Casting aspersions and calling names doesn't cut it.
I have never seen anything suggesting a rational alternative.
Why doesn't someone come up with a realistic solution
rather than simply complaining that the government is wrong?

Comparisons with the Soviet occupation are equally specious.

For the record:
Afghanistan has had elections.
Afghanistan is no longer the poorest nation on earth.
Infant mortality is DOWN.
Afghans are no longer subject to Totalitarian rule.
The Taliban are now largely an external foreign force.
Schools are opening
Schools are educating girls.

How would risking all of this by changing our foreign policy
be a good thing?  How is the hope for security a bad thing?

PM Harper is right.

I wonder if they'll print it?


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Dec 2007)

Flip: They did:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071226.wharper1226/CommentStory/National/home#comment1549186

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Koenigsegg (26 Dec 2007)

Oh god...

You should have put a warning around that link.  I felt the need to read some of the comments, and now my ears are bleeding.
But the worst part, it is like seeing a train wreck.   You don't want to watch, but you can't turn away.


----------



## Flip (26 Dec 2007)

I consider this a bit of a probe.

I directly challenged "them" to suggest some improvement
to Canada's Afghanistan Policy.

They did not.

More huffing and puffing and accusations.
That's all they've got apparently.
No facts, no logic no effort to persuade.
Just leftie noise.

Like I said - Maybe Harper's right.


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Dec 2007)

Koenigsegg: Well, I did write "If you have the stomach..." :

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Dec 2007)

PM Harper speaks to _Maclean's_.  Not a very spirited approach and ignores the fact that the Germans were educated, and had a lot of experience in running an effective state and a modern economy --hardly a realistic or fair comparison.  Plus the Marshall aid that dwarfs the assistance to Afstan.  Moreover Germany was not "fully restored within four years".  Bosnia or Somalia would be better comparisons.
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071227_193713_1392


> ...
> On Afghanistan, the dominant defence and foreign policy file, Harper again looks ahead to tough choices. Rather than talking up the military mission in Kandahar as an inspiring undertaking, he used the year-end sit-down to vent frustration at slow progress in building a self-sufficient Afghan government. “You know, the United Nations and our allies will have been in Afghanistan 10 years in 2011. For God’s sakes, Germany was basically fully restored within four years; Germany joined NATO ten years after it was conquered.”
> 
> He does not seem to be willing to accept anything like an open-ended commitment in central Asia. “To say that Afghanistan would need decades and decades just to do the basic security work, I think is pushing credibility,” Harper said. “Not just pushing the patience of the Canadian public and the military, pushing the credibility of the effort. A sovereign government must, at some point, say, ‘We can actually deal with this on a day-to-day basis. We can be responsible.’”
> ...



I would agree that if the Afghans can't take on much of the security load within two/three years then it will be hard for many countries to stay seriously committed.

It seems to me however that Mr Harper is losing his own commitment to the Afghan mission; maybe he never really was that serious about it, imagining rather along the lines of Paul Martin that it wouldn't be that big a deal and would provide domestic political (remember that first visit to Kandahar in March 2006?) 
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/12/afghan-troops060312.html
and international diplomatic rewards.  The reality has proved rather different and difficult.  Perhaps that's why the prime minister is so ineffective at "selling" the mission.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Dec 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Flip: They did:
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071226.wharper1226/CommentStory/National/home#comment1549186



Cripes, what a bunch of gearboxes.  Clearly, the Glob doesn't have moderators for their boards.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jan 2008)

I think we should take heed of this column by Lawrence Martin, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080103.COMARTIN03/TPStory/?query=The+Afghan+Mission%3A+Do+We+Settle+For+A+Bronze+Medal+Or+Risk+Going+For+Gold%3F


> The Afghan mission: Do we settle for a bronze medal or risk going for gold?
> 
> January 3, 2008
> 
> ...



I think Martin, here staying firmly in his lanes as an expert on _national *politics*_, has got it about right. The Government of Canada (whether headed by Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin or Stephen Harper) has failed to convince Canadians that our mission in Afghanistan is worthy of the sacrifices. The reasons so many, _waaaay_ too many, Canadians reject the mission are many and varied and include an unhealthy dose of adolescent, knee-jerk anti-Americanism and an equally unhealthy fixation on the *myth* of _Pearsonian_, baby-blue beret style _peacekeeping_ as Canadians national _niche_. But, suffice to say, too many Canadians are unconvinced that their soldiers (the neighbour’s kid, the co-worker’s son or daughter) are doing the right thing or doing things right in Afghanistan.

That may be because, as *I believe* to be the case, none of Prime Ministers Chrétien, Martin or Harper really believe in the mission _qua_ mission. I think all three took a deeply cynical view of the Afghanistan operations – seeing them (successively Kandahar then Kabul and now Kandahar again), as Martin suggests, as ways to _appease_ the Americans – as though the Americans were an enemy who would punish us if we dared disagree with them too often. If that is the case, and I repeat I believe it is, then we have wasted and are wasting the lives of brave young men and women for the sake of unprincipled politicians.

*But*: we’re there; Canadian soldiers are engaged – even though Canadians are not. Canada has put its reputation and its lives on the line and now many Canadians want to back away – to _settle for the bronze_, as Martin puts it. Bigger *BUT*: Martin correctly tells us that the _bronze_ will tarnish quickly and we will be haunted by the failure – the people of Canada will be haunted by the disgrace of the *defeat* they, themselves, administered to their own armed forces.

Canadians don’t want to stay in Afghanistan. That’s the fault of successive governments which sent us to, and then back to Afghanistan and then kept us there while, all the time, being unable to “sell” the mission to Canadians because they – the politicians- don’t really believe in their own rhetoric. Why should Canadians want to ‘stay the course’ when it is pretty clear that even politicians who were enthusiastic for the mission in 2002 have changed their tunes. (If Stéphane Dion was not a mission supporter then he was, or is now, dishonest because every single minister in the Chrétien and Martin cabinets *must* have been a supporter or a liar – no other option exists for members of cabinet in a Westminster style parliamentary governemnt.) Equally, Canadians can see that Prime Minister Harper extended the mission to sow dissent in the ranks of the Liberal Party of Canada, not because he thought he was ‘doing the right thing.’ Why should Canadians be anything but ambivalent?

Even though Canadians do not want to stay, a responsible national government will keep us there because this is a situation in which settling for the bronze will not be good enough. It will leave an indelible stain on our national reputation – the one in which so many, many Canadians take so much pride. This may be an unwinnable war in the minds of politicians and the pundits, but that’s because they do not understand the real, essential ‘victory conditions’.

We can, indeed must leave Afghanistan as soon as we can – as soon as we have accomplished the tasks we accepted and set for ourselves. They are difficult, but not impossible tasks; they require a gold medal performance.

Let’s go for the gold!


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jan 2008)

I found this flip flop on his part rather interesting:



> The Canadian rank and file see the importance of the war, but they see a lot of other things as well. They've seen humanitarian progress in Afghanistan but not much military progress. They see practically no chance of the Taliban's being eradicated, no matter how many years our troops are there.



He does end his piece well with the Bronze meaning nothing if we pull out and the Taliban take over again.   I do hate being considered a "Quiter".


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (4 Jan 2008)

I agree to a certain extent. We do suffer from the "mentality of mediocrity" in most things...except hockey. When the going gets tough (or expensive) the Canadian public tends to want to cancel out. (Avro Arrow, EH101, HMCS Bras Dor etc...) The mentality of "quick fixing" things tends to be at play too.

I too would like to see us stay the course and finish what we've started. In this regard I think the CDS has a more realistic view than a lot of folks. It will take at least 10 years and we should be prepared to stay that long.  The benefits to enhancing our stature on the International stage as a credible actor will be incalculable. We are already being viewed in NATO and G8 as a "doer" now (and not just a "talker") due to what we have committed to in Afghanistan. If we can leave with a gold medal, to use the analogy, we will regain status as a responsible, active Middle Power again. Our investment in upgrading our Armed Forces is also a step in establishing our credibility as a Nation who is prepared and able to act and not just sit on the sidelines bleating platitudes.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Jan 2008)

As usual, I remain impressed with the way E.R. Campbell thinks and writes. Sadly, I disagree with his one line that "the people of Canada will be haunted by the disgrace of the *defeat* they, themselves, administered to their own armed forces." 

I can't image the psyche of the average Canadian being "haunted" by much of anything. 
Being haunted would require more thought and conscience than is present in the rhetoric of anti-Americanism, political correctness, or occasionally, a wide-spread but short-lived spasm at something Paul Bernardo-esque. Such Pavlovian salivation that passes for a Canadian moral superiority will certainly keep Canadians from being troubled by the long-term consequences of opinion polls' simplistic, quick-fixes.

And I suspect that such a dispirited outlook in this comes from having seen humanitarian and military progress......yet fully expecting it to be squandered in pandering to vote-chasing.


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Jan 2008)

A _National Post_ editorial (reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act):
http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=213821



> Canadian soldiers are at significantly greater risk of death in Afghanistan than their counterparts in the British and U.S. armies. The death rate of our soldiers even surpasses that of American servicemen in Iraq, according to a National Defence Department analysis obtained by the National Post and reported in yesterday's edition.
> http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=211624
> 
> In its analysis, Canada's defence department calculated that we are losing soldiers at a proportionate rate 2.6 to four times higher than the Brits and Americans in Afghanistan, and 2.6 times higher than the U.S. military in Iraq. For Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan, the death rate ranged from 1.3% to 1.6% (compared to 0.3% to 0.6% for their allies in Afghanistan and 0.5% to 0.6% for U.S. forces in Iraq.)
> ...



I don't think Iltis's have been much used on the latest Kandahar mission, where the great majority of casualties have been (and I don't think our allies, esp. the Brits, have generally had better vehicles in the south than we); we have drones (Sperwers, though how good they are...); and it was the Mulroney gov't that sold the Chinooks in 1991.  Don't our journalists do any real research?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Flip (5 Jan 2008)

> Don't our journalists do any real research?



That's always been our real problem in Afghanistan.
It's all about opinion...........And everybody's got one.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jan 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> That's always been our real problem in Afghanistan.
> It's all about opinion...........And everybody's got one.



Opinions are fine but when they are presented as fact, they should at least be correct.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Jan 2008)

*Sadly, I disagree with his one line that "the people of Canada will be haunted by the disgrace of the defeat they, themselves, administered to their own armed forces." 

I can't image the psyche of the average Canadian being "haunted" by much of anything. * 

I fear Bob has zeroed in on a key factor - the national "what me worry" attitude. There was a story about an end year poll in one of the papers recently. It found that the Canadian people felt the rest of the world was descending into chaos - sort of a Churchillian "new dark age" [my words] - but were smuggly and serenely confident that we would avoid all the trials and tribulations in the year to come.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jan 2008)

At which point they risk a rude awakening.

Whereupon they shoot the messenger, Steven Harper, and enlist the combined talents of Stephane and Jack to lead them through the valley.

Now there's a scary thought.


----------



## enfield (5 Jan 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> *Sadly, I disagree with his one line that "the people of Canada will be haunted by the disgrace of the defeat they, themselves, administered to their own armed forces."
> 
> I can't image the psyche of the average Canadian being "haunted" by much of anything. *
> 
> I fear Bob has zeroed in on a key factor - the national "what me worry" attitude. There was a story about an end year poll in one of the papers recently. It found that the Canadian people felt the rest of the world was descending into chaos - sort of a Churchillian "new dark age" [my words] - but were smuggly and serenely confident that we would avoid all the trials and tribulations in the year to come.



Probably an accurate assessment. 
I believe the Canadian psyche views overseas military missions in much the same way as development aid, emergency assistance, and whatnot - a nice luxury that we can provide, sometimes, out of the goodness of our hearts. 

To Canadian society, military missions are never _necessary_ and there is almost no connection between national interest and military operations. Consciously or subconsciously part of our national ideal is that we do not use force to achieve our aims; we use int'l law, the UN, and soft power. "Wars never solve anything" is practically a national motto. 
Actions by troops must always be justified by their relevance to development -- If the battle did not directly aid in building a new school/hospital or giving medical aid to children, the battle was not worth it.

Thus, we are not in Afghanistan because it is important for the national security of Canada and global stability - we're there because we're charitable, for the same good-doer reasons we were in Cyprus, Sinai, Bosnia, etc. 

(As a side note: I'd even go so far as to say that many Canadian today view our involvement in WW1 + 2 as something of a vast charitable campaign, that wasn't really our war, but we were nice and helped the Europeans out.)

Due to a number of factors (failure by gov't to 'sell' the mission, bias media coverage, anti-American bias, etc) John Q. Public can only measure and evaluate the war by the one quantifiable measurement - the body count. Progress is harder to measure and is often subjective, but the body count is always exact and clear. And John Q. Public sees no gain, no advantage, for those 73 dead. 

Whereas we compare and evaluate the war in A'stan in relation to a variety of campaigns, conflicts (everything from Victorian colonial wars to Bosnia in '93 to the Malayan Emergency) our friends, the General Public and the Main Stream Media, have only four basic models to compare Canada's involvement with, and a few basic (and simplistic) associations with those models:
1) Vietnam - the prime example in the public mind of waste, pointlessness. Usually the basis of comparison for journalists. 
2) Iraq - seen as a copy of Vietnam, but a copy caused by the arrogance and stupidity of Dubya. To the public Iraq and Afghanistan are nearly the same place.
3) WW2 - the ideal, but also forces the public to see the army as a mass of 18 yr old conscripts.  
4) Peacekeeping - another ideal, something the public knows it likes but can't really define, and doesn't really understand. They just know peacekeeping=int'l law, no dead Canadians, and the UN.

The Canadian public has no stomach for a war, but the Canadian government and policy makers know it is necessary. The next few years will see us sorting out a balance between the two. However, I do believe the public is coming to grips with the idea that Canada should and will have a more muscular role in the world.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (5 Jan 2008)

Exactly!


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Jan 2008)

Enfield, I think you're 99.5% there!



> ...The *[vocal]* Canadian public has no stomach for a war, but the Canadian government and policy makers know it is necessary. The next few years will see us sorting out a balance between the two. However, I do believe the public is coming to grips with the idea that Canada should and will have a more muscular role in the world.



I believe there is a statistically significant number of Canadian citizens who do know, and do appreciate what is required -- that wonderful warm Pearsonian things such as 'peacekeeping' were leveraged from the experience gained through the sacrifice of 60,000+ Canadian service men and women prior to the peacekeeping 60's and 70's.  They are happy with where the government knows it must go to actually be responsible in the global community, not just where a bunch of people think we should be so that they can pat themselves on the back for what a wonderful job us 'peaceful' Canadians did in the world after Pearson formalized the use of "excess combat/destructive power" of a nation built up over generations.

Yes, Sun Tzu states that the best war is the one you don't have to fight, but influence through other strategic effects.  At times, though, evil must be held at bay -- and this is something that the vocal Canadian peace-biased citizenry would prefer not to have to accept as being a pragmatic reality in today's world.

G2G


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jan 2008)

I suspect the head in the sand attitude is far closer to the truth than any other explanation I have seen or heard. The blank stares I get when speaking to people about what I saw and heard over there is eloquent testament to that, and if that was not enough, read this post on Celestial Junk and ask yourself why these paragons of "goodness" and "human rights" are silent........

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/01/taliban-dickheads-express-peace-of.html



> 06 January 2008
> *Taliban Dickheads Express the Peace of Islam*
> 
> By torturing a small girl for not covering her head:
> ...


----------



## Flip (7 Jan 2008)

> I suspect the head in the sand attitude is far closer to the truth than any other explanation I have seen or heard.


  I think of it as selective blindness.  People will accept there is evil in 
a "Daddy Warbucks" figure, but can't imagine there is any threat posed by an apperantly
simple tribal  people and can't imagine that they have associates that GWB isn't friends with too.
More plainly - They would rather assume it's all about how America relates to the Arab world
rather than about how the Arab world relateds to America.
Then there is a stupid assumption that it all doesn't relate to anyone else.

Bit of a rant I know - But I need that sometimes.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Jan 2008)

A post by Babbling Brooks at _The Torch_:

Literary review as an excuse to punditry
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/literary-review-as-excuse-to-punditry.html



> Robert Fowler doesn't think NATO can prevail in Afghanistan. He also thinks that since NATO countries don't have the will to commit to winning in Afghanistan, that we shouldn't even try.
> 
> Oh, and incidentally - and I mean incidentally - he reviews the Stein and Lang spin-job masquerading as a political history.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Jan 2008)

It may be punditry, but it also does a pretty fair job on destroying the arguments put forward in the book. Hopefully the Ruxtedistas will read it.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jan 2008)

Actually, I liked the article.  Specifically, these 3 parts:



> One of the more extreme generalizations in the book is this: “Both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, Canada’s senior military leaders did not think about the war that would ensue after the battle was over.” And, without revealing any sources or evidence, Stein and Lang state that “in Canada, the military was simply not well connected enough to those experts outside government who could provide the warning.” Clearly, DND should not have let its subscription lapse to the Briefings issued by the Munk Centre for International Studies.
> 
> A similarly unsubstantiated allegation is made with the portentous suggestion that “few in Ottawa realized at the time [February 2003] that the assignment to Kabul, and Canada’s efforts to bring NATO into Afghanistan, would draw Canada into a long-term military operation in a country where security was deteriorating. This was the first step down a long road.” How did the authors conclude that “few in Ottawa” understood there would be long-term implications in going to Afghanistan with NATO? Why would they assume that within the defence department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade there was not a world-weary and very deep understanding, honed over almost 60 years of peacekeeping service with UNTSO in the Middle East, and half that time on the Golan Heights, through more than 60 troop rotations in Cyprus, and more than a decade of peacekeeping in the Balkans, that we were in Afghanistan for the long haul?



Finally, we quit getting beat up for militarily underestimating the situation.  Considering you could find past posts by serving members on these forums from a few years back testifying that not only would Afghanistan be a long mission but that things would get hot once we moved to Kandahar, then I think it is safe to assume that military planners above my pay grade had that figured out.  Bob Fowler gives them their due.



> Sure, Canadian assistance programs have put lots of Afghan children (especially girls) in school, but it is hard to argue that we are fighting and dying for this when elsewhere in the world there are millions of children who would dearly love to attend school, and where getting them there does not risk lives. And we are investing hugely in “governance” in that country although we must know that we will not soon dent Afghanistan’s profound culture of corruption. As an Africanist, I cannot help but speculate what would be the reaction in Canada to our maintaining a relationship—indeed of proclaiming it to be “the central pillar of Canadian foreign policy,” as our foreign ministry so doggedly maintains—with such a regime on the African continent.



Telling, I guess.  I'm a little more optimistic in what Afghanistan could accomplish looking at it's pre-Communist days.  Islamic radicalism is foreign to the country (as Fowler quotes Ms. Chayes) and it has existed as a stable entity in the past.  The question is has 30-years of warfare removed any chance of returning to a state similar to that one?  I guess that is what we are fighting to find out.



> Stein and Lang have understood this, and conclude, rather bleakly, that “if there is no reasonable chance of containing the insurgency, then it would be impossible to justify to Canadians a continuing military commitment and the loss of the lives of Canadian soldiers.”
> 
> Where, though, have we heard any articulation of a cogent strategy to engage Pakistan effectively in the search for a manageable border with Afghanistan? Is Pakistan not at least as much the font of al Qaeda support as Afghanistan, but just more difficult?
> 
> ...



Pretty telling indictment, and one that people should be willing to respond to if widespread support for the mission is to be found.  As Fowler said, returning Afghan kids to school isn't really a convincing enough reason to have flag-draped coffins return to Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2008)

Actually, I think Bob Fowler is spot on, on several of his points, especially:

•	Stein and Lang did, unjustifiably I believe, blame soldiers and bureaucrats for purely political blunders. I repeat what I have said elsewhere: it is inconceivable that Gen. Rick Hillier ‘turned’ some of the brightest politicians in the country (people like Paul Martin and Bill Graham) away from their intended _baby blue beret_ peacekeeping missions in Africa and into an American style _bomb ‘em back into the stone age_ mission in Afghanistan – to suggest that, as Lang, especially, did, is beyond nonsense, it’s political propaganda masquerading as historical analysis. Lang’s former olitical masters cannot be let off the hook quite so easily.

•	The Western/NATO governments providing ISAF in Afghanistan are, indeed, exactly as Fowler says: *” poorly motivated, uncoordinated and insufficiently committed”* to the business at hand, and the longer we and the few _committed_ nations accept that situation the much more likely it is that Fowler will be right and we will fail in Afghanistan – not suddenly, we will, rather, just lose the will to “go for the gold” as Lawrence  Martin put it in an article I cited a few days ago. We’ll decide that our much touted _Responsibility to Protect_ the weak and (rightly) aggrieved in the world is something better done by long-winded debates in New York rather than on the ground in Central Asia or Africa.

I don’t agree with Fowler that Afghanistan is not winnable. It is, but only under the very conditions he quotes Gen. Hillier as offering: “Afghanistan will not be rebuilt in a year, or two, or five. It’s going to take a long, long time. It’s going to take a generation or more.” If Canadians don’t have the stomach for the long haul then we will, surely, lose – maybe we’ll “settle for the bronze” (Lawrence Martin again) but that’s still not the same as winning and anything other than winning is losing in a counterinsurgency campaign. Fowler cites Jim Travers of the _Toronto Star_ as saying: “There will be no decisive military victories. Victory will go to those with strategic patience and endurance.” I'm guessing that Bob Fowler doesn’t believe Canadians or their political *leaders* are endowed with either strategic patience or endurance; I know I don’t.

Readers should also understand that Fowler advocates a strong, even robust military role for Canada in the world – just not in Afghanistan which I suspect he thinks is of little strategic consequence and will, eventually be swept up in a greater, far more dangerous South/Central Asian _realignment_  possibly involving India, Pakistan, Iran and Russia and nuclear weapons to boot. Mr. Fowler, as I understand him, wants Canada to pick and choose, selectively, with our own _strategic_ interests at the fore, tough missions, which will likely be in Africa, and then seize and hold a leadership role in them – not necessarily in UN missions but, always, with a UN mandate.


----------



## armyvern (8 Jan 2008)

Edward ...

 :-*

_swoon_

(That beats the hell out of the standard and way too used "+1" post!!)


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Jan 2008)

E.R. Campbell:



> Mr. Fowler, as I understand him, wants Canada to pick and choose, selectively, with our own strategic interests at the fore, tough missions, which will likely be in Africa, and then seize and hold a leadership role in them – not necessarily in UN missions but, always, with a UN mandate.



Er, is that not what we've been trying to do at Kandahar?  Maybe it's easier to win (at least not take too many casualties) in Africa.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/64763/post-657961.html#msg657961



> Readers should also understand that Fowler advocates a strong, even robust military role for Canada in the world – just not in Afghanistan which I suspect he thinks is of little strategic consequence [maudit idiot ] and will, eventually be swept up in a greater, far more dangerous South/Central Asian realignment  possibly involving India, Pakistan, Iran and Russia and nuclear weapons to boot.



So rather than continue to do our bit in Afstan--and, regardless of what NATO ends up doing there, I don't think the US, UK (and maybe Aussies) will give up for quite a while--we bug out to Africa whilst these great games begin.



> I'm guessing that Bob Fowler doesn’t believe Canadians or their political leaders are endowed with either strategic patience or endurance; I know I don’t.



Quite.  By the way both Obama and Clinton have said they want to strengthen the US military role in Afstan.  Good on the Democrats.  As usual somewhat to the right of our Conservatives.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (8 Jan 2008)

Personally I enjoyed the Stein and Lang book, I also like what Fowler is saying and also what you said E.R.
My goal in following these writings is simply to understand why are we there, what are we trying to accomplish and what are our future options.
I think reading the above articles and book should leave Canadians well informed on the mission and able to appreciate Hillier's comment that this is a task that will take a long long time. 
The present status quo is set to become a stalemate. As Edward says in a counter insurgency war if you aren't winning you are loosing.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Jan 2008)

A view from what might perhaps call a Canadian blogger; I think it's a good read:

Fifteen Days
http://dodosville.blogspot.com/2008/01/fifteen-days.html



> For Christmas this year I got the book Fifteen Days by Christie Blatchford from my partner. At first I was a little hesitant because I'm not much of a military guy. To be honest, I know almost nothing about the military, or war, except for a bunch of names and dates. And while I had an opinion about the Afghanistan War, I'll be the first to admit that it was less than informed. Despite this hesitancy, I read it and to my surprise I really enjoyed it. Loved it in fact. Blatchford does a great job capturing the stories of the men and women who are fighting in Afghanistan and illustrating the love they have for each other and how hard it is on them to lose their fellow soldiers. It certainly captures something I started to think about after watching Ken Burns latest documentary, The War, about the U.S. involvement in WWII - war is a terrifying endeavor and ultimately, people die, suffer, and come home changed, sometimes for the better, many times for the worse. Because of this, sending soldiers to war is something that should never be undertaken carelessly or without great thought because the costs are too high if we are wrong.
> 
> Reading the book has forced me to examine my knee-jerk opposition to the Afghanistan War. The sympathy I felt for the families and friends of those who have died was too great not to. I asked myself - is this war winnable? Is their sacrifice worth what they are achieving? Are the soldiers doing more good than bad over there? Now before I go on I should explain that I am not a pacifist. In today's world, war is something that sometimes has to be entered into - there are a lot of fucking crazies in the world and we need to protect ourselves from those people. The world had to stand up to Hitler and the Nazi's because if they didn't, one can only imagine what damage the Third Reich would have done. Saying that, I also think that today too many people are too willing to enter into war as the first and only option. Can all enemies be beaten by a military intervention? Or do some require other actions? These are questions that too many, including those in government, are willing to ask.
> 
> ...



A wee shake on my part.  Via _Celestial Junk_:
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/01/fifteen-days-another-review.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Jan 2008)

a letter of mine sent to the _Toronto Star_ Jan. 8 and so far not published:



> In her column about the US presidential race Linda McQuaig
> http://www.thestar.com/columnists/article/291825
> writes that "while Canadians like to think of Afghanistan as a very different war than the one in Iraq, the Republicans clearly see the two wars as simply twin parts in America's battle with radical Islam."
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jan 2008)

Mark, you might have added that Obama is on record as being ready to go into Pakistan uninvited if he feels it is necessary.

The only difference between the Dems and the Republicans in the war on terror is the choice of the battlegrounds.


----------



## TCBF (9 Jan 2008)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> a letter of mine sent to the _Toronto Star_ Jan. 8 and so far not published:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



- The Toronto 'Red' Star only publishes progressive revolutionary works, not reactionary diatribes undercutting the heroic struggle of the workers and peasants.  You oughta know that.

 ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Jan 2008)

Kirkhill: Quite, but I was KISSing it .

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## regulator12 (9 Jan 2008)

After some really informed lectures I have come to the realization of how complex the Afghanistan mission really is. This idea of trying to organize a democratic government to rule the land is a not a very effective idea when one realizes the the core of Afghan culture resides in there tribes and ancient ways. We need to gain the trust and honor from the tribes in there respective areas to start to gain ground over there. We need to continue that bond of trust and friendship through all rotos. When people on here ask who are the people of Afghanistan fighting for you need to realize that the Afghan people want security and saftey for there respective tribes and areas to live there way of life, if we are not able to give this to them then maybe the "Taliban" can. I think we need to really begin to learn there culture and look back at there history as a people and see that the way we usually do business wont work and is not working, they are a patient people, very revengful people and want results they will side with whomever is giving them what they want. Just some interesting points that I have heard about and i think that if we really tap into there culture and understand what Afghanistan people are about and there history and who they really are we can defeat the extreme islamist.


----------



## observor 69 (16 Jan 2008)

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/294470

Jan 16, 2008 04:30 AM 
Chantal Hébert 

OTTAWA - With some help from the Liberal leader himself, Conservative strategists had a field day framing Stéphane Dion as a weakling last year. But now there are signs that he is breaking out of that box. His trip to Afghanistan last weekend was a well-executed move based on a coherent strategy and a message that resonates with a majority of voters.

Liberal strategists seem to have finally figured out that Dion needs to be seen as more than just another opposition leader. Too often over the past year, he has been busy shooting at everything that moves within the Conservative government rather than focusing on a few key issues that will matter in the next election.

As essential as the role of chief critic of the government may be to the parliamentary system, it is largely incompatible with the goal of showcasing oneself as a prime-minister-in-waiting. 

Canadians only too easily see Dion in opposition. They need all the help they can get to imagine him in power. In Afghanistan and, to a lesser degree, in Bali at the December climate-change talks, the Liberal leader managed to at least give them a taste of the latter.

One message from the Afghan trip is that the Liberal caucus will not again be split by the issue. Michael Ignatieff and Dion – who were on opposing sides of the decision to extend the deployment to 2009 – are singing from the same hymn book as to its future, as is Bob Rae, the party's foreign affairs critic.

Another message is that the Liberals have largely made their bed on the follow-up to the deployment or at least on their bottom line of not supporting another combat mission. And that almost certainly means leaving Kandahar, a province that is not pacified enough for the kind of Canadian support role Dion has repeatedly sketched out.  
If the group presided over by former deputy prime minister John Manley is to bring the Liberals and Conservatives under the same Afghan tent, the recommendation it will make next week will need to amount to a substantial departure from the current mission. Otherwise, the Prime Minister is unlikely to achieve a consensus on the way forward in the current House of Commons. There simply is no opposition support in sight for an extended Canadian combat role in Afghanistan.

On the basis of the Conservative critique of the Dion trip, it seems the government is still hoping to browbeat the Liberal opposition into submission. But not only will that probably fail, it also detracts from attempts to portray Harper as taking a non-partisan road on the issue.

The dismissive tone of secretary of state Helena Guergis – who railed at Dion for needing the protection of the very soldiers he would reassign away from Kandahar – and the gist of a published open letter penned by parliamentary secretary Laurie Hawn – who accused the Liberals of running away from the war on terrorism – indicate that the Conservatives may have forgotten a key lesson from their own recent past. 

It is foolhardy to engage an opponent on the basis of his caricature. The Martin Liberals learned that the hard way when they convinced themselves that they had so successfully assassinated Harper's political character in 2004 that he could not rise from the grave to beat them two years later.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (16 Jan 2008)

I personally like Chantal Hebert's columns and don't disagree with what she has written there today. I do think that it's all a mute point as there will likely be a spring election before a decision has to be made on the 2009 deadline. I wouldn't like to bet on the outcome of the election at this point. The Tories are leading in the polls at the moment  (last night's news had them at 36% compared to 30% Liberal and Dion's popularity was somewhere around 20% I think) but anything can happen when the writ hits the streets. I just hope we can get a lot of our equipment purchases going before the election because if the Liberals manage to turn their popularity around we will no doubt suffer in DND at the hands of our old "friends" the Liberals.


----------



## observor 69 (16 Jan 2008)

I agree with all that IHC.
 But the comment that we would probably move to another province if we role change was news to me?


----------



## Haletown (16 Jan 2008)

But now, Steffi wants to invade/bomb Pakistan. 

"QUEBEC -- Any attempt to counter terrorists war-torn Afghanistan will not succeed without an intervention in neighbouring Pakistan, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said Wednesday.

Mr. Dion hinted NATO could take action in Pakistan, which has a porous border with Afghanistan, if the Pakistani government doesn't move to track terrorists."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=242249


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Jan 2008)

A letter of mine in the _Toronto Star_, Jan. 16:

Canada will taste the U.S. appetite for change
Column, Jan. 13
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/294323http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/294323



> Rudyard Griffiths writes
> http://www.thestar.com/article/293340
> that "voters are warming to candidates who espouse ... scaling back overseas military missions." Canadians should be aware that is not the position of the two leading Democratic candidates with respect to Afghanistan. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both more hawkish than our government, not to mention the Liberals, NDP and Bloc.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Haletown (16 Jan 2008)

With this kind of grossly misleading reporting by the Star, it is not hard to figure out why so many Toronto voters are Liberal and show so little the  support for our troops and the mission.

At least they printed your letter and that will go a long way to redressing the incorrect impressions that the original article promoted.

Good on ya


----------



## observor 69 (17 Jan 2008)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011603521_pf.html


Fight in Afghanistan
It's becoming clear that the war must be won by U.S. troops, and not by NATO.

Thursday, January 17, 2008; A22



THE BUSH administration's decision to dispatch an additional 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan raises the question of whether NATO's participation in the war has been a failure. Though the United States already provides more than half of the 53,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, the additional Marines are needed because no other NATO country was willing, despite months of pleading and cajoling by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, to commit fresh forces to the troubled southern provinces where the Taliban has made a comeback.

What's more, Mr. Gates and other senior Pentagon officials seem to have concluded that the three NATO countries that have been willing to operate in the south -- Britain, Canada and the Netherlands -- have been relatively ineffective. Mr. Gates told the Los Angeles Times this week that "most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counterinsurgency"; the Pentagon believes they are too averse to casualties, too reluctant to patrol and too dependent on artillery and airstrikes. The Post's Karen DeYoung reported that U.S. commanders criticize British troops for failing to retain control over areas taken from the Taliban and for advancing a "colonial" strategy of backing local militias rather than working with the national Afghan army.

European diplomats and NATO's defenders furiously respond that the American complaints are unfounded. Almost all of the alliance's members have increased their commitment to Afghanistan in the past year, they point out, helping to raise the troop level under NATO command from 33,000 to 41,000. The troubles in the south, they say, are the result of NATO forces penetrating an area that U.S. commanders had neglected, allowing the Taliban to flourish. British officials say their strategy in Helmand province is comparable to the successful U.S. alliances with Sunni militias in Iraq.

Certainly, NATO's involvement in Afghanistan has done some good. Deployments in more peaceful areas of the country, as well as Kabul, fulfill a peacekeeping role that might otherwise fall to American troops. The commitment of 25 other NATO governments (as well as 13 other countries) to the Afghan mission makes the operation more palatable both to Afghans and to Americans. Though many countries restrict their troops from combat, the British, Canadians and Dutch have made contributions in blood, suffering a total of 177 fatalities; 480 U.S. soldiers have been killed.

It nevertheless is a good thing that Marines rather than European soldiers will deploy in Helmand province this spring to head off any Taliban offensive. Defeating the Afghan insurgency will require the United States to take on a larger part of the fighting. Success will also require U.S. commanders to insist that a more coherent, nationwide counterinsurgency strategy be pursued -- including aggressive training of the Afghan army and police, economic development that is centrally coordinated, and a focused attack on the opium business that supplies most of the Taliban's funding. If that means downgrading NATO's role or bruising the feelings of some allied governments, so be it.


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Jan 2008)

A post at _The Torch_:

Not that our opposition will pay heed
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/not-that-our-opposition-will-pay-heed.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Dog Walker (19 Jan 2008)

I hope that this group is proven wrong; otherwise it looks like things will be getting worst before they become better.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL216061.htm

Afghan war only just beginning, security group warns 
19 Jan 2008 10:20:20 GMT 
Source: Reuters

KABUL, Jan 19 (Reuters) - The war in Afghanistan is only just beginning as NATO forces, far from pursuing remnants of a defeated Taliban, are entering a widening and deepening conflict they may well lose security NGO said on Saturday. 
Taliban insurgents, fighting to overthrow the pro-Western Afghan government and eject foreign forces, carried out more attacks over a wider area in 2007, the Afghanistan NGO Security Office (ANSO) said in its report for last year, and the best case scenario for this year, is "more of the same". 
"A few years from now, 2007 will likely be looked back upon as the year in which the Taliban seriously rejoined the fight," said ANSO, which monitors security for the dozens of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working in Afghanistan. 
U.S.-led and Afghan forces ousted the Taliban from power in late 2001 after the conservative Islamist movement refused to hand over al Qaeda leaders behind the Sept. 11 attacks. 
But, "with the Taliban resurgent, it has become obvious that their easy departure in 2001 was more of a strategic retreat than an actual military defeat," the report said. 
"In simple terms, the consensus among informed individuals at the end of 2007 seems to be that Afghanistan is at the beginning of a war, not the end of one," it said. 
The Taliban are still most active in their traditional heartlands in the south and east of the country, but have also extended attacks to parts of the west, centre and north. 
The NATO-led International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF), has some 41,000 troops in Afghanistan, but due to restrictions on how and where most European troops are deployed and taking out the necessary support troops, ISAF can not field more than 5,000 to 7,000 combat troops, ANSO estimated. 
ISAF commanders have long complained of a lack of troops and the U.S. government, despairing over the failure of European countries to send more troops to Afghanistan, this week announced it was sending 3,200 marines to the country. 
Even so, the best case scenario for 2008 was "more of the same", ANSO said with Taliban insurgents slowly expanding its influence on the countryside and aid groups being forced to retreat into the relative safety of the cities. 
Western political leaders and NATO commanders say they are making progress in fighting the Taliban, heading off a spring offensive last year and building up Afghan security forces. 
"We totally disagree with those who assert that the 'spring offensive' did not happen and would instead argue that a four-fold increase in armed opposition group initiated attacks Feb to July constitutes a very clear-cut offensive," ANSO said. (Writing by Jon Hemming; Editing by Bill Tarrant))


----------



## Teflon (19 Jan 2008)

Who is:



> the consensus among informed individuals



..........

Oh that little known but all seeing and knowing gathering of EXPERTS that due to their shear greatness and reliability must remain nameless,....


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Jan 2008)

A great piece by a great journalist (read the whole thing):


BLATCHFORD'S TAKE: A WOEFUL WEEK [print version only]
Afghanistan: painful displays of ignorance and arrogance
http://199.246.67.249/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20080119/BLATCHFORD19/Comment/comment/commentColumnistsHeadline/3/3/8/



> ...before the Liberal leader met Canadian troops and posed in the cute camo outfit (I would knock the block off whoever lent the gear to him, by the way)
> http://chuckercanuck.blogspot.com/2008/01/bushs-poodle.html
> he had his mind made up - the combat mission, as the party's submission said, should end as scheduled in February, 2009. His visit there was a disingenuous and fraudulent exercise in bullshit public relations.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (19 Jan 2008)

Teflon said:
			
		

> Who is:
> 
> ..........
> 
> Oh that little known but all seeing and knowing gathering of EXPERTS that due to their shear greatness and reliability must remain nameless,....



ANSO is indeed very active in theatre and provides the day to day security advice to both the UN and to a variety of NGOs.  They can indeed be described as "experts" in at least that sense.  Whether they're positioned to deliver strategic assessments is another matter.


----------



## Teflon (19 Jan 2008)

Yes Good I can read that as well, but I was looking on more definition on who the consensus of informed individuals the article refers to consisted of.


----------



## McG (19 Jan 2008)

I think the question was less "who is ANSO" and more "who are the informed individuals" 

Yet, while the narrative does not tell us who they are, it makes it clear that only uninformed individuals could possibly disagree (as all informed individuals have arrived at consensus.


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Jan 2008)

A guest-post at _Daimnation!_ (note the *Update*):

Afghanistan: The view from T.O.
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/010709.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Jan 2008)

How long do we stay in Afghanistan doing our current mission?

Short Answer:  until January 2011

Long Answer: Having read the entire submission of the Liberal Party of Canada's submission to the Manley Panel in another thread on this site, I have come to the conclusion that only substantive policy that I see is the proposal that the Parliament consider four courses of action, as laid out on page 4 of the submission (train only, reconstruct only, move to a less volatile region, withdraw except for Diplomatic and Development worker close protection).  We need more than that.  The Canadian Government, and through extension, all Canadians, need to inform themselves more than just scratching the surface or developing one or the other choice of a binary decision (stay/leave). 

I don't disagree that a whole of Government review of the role of the Government of Canada in helping Afghanistan rebuild and further develop itself should be undertaken.  However, the 2009 date has little if any basis of validity.  I will go further -- having studied much of the fundamental developmental work (not just aid at villiage level, but whole of Government of Canada contribution to Afghanistan's redevelopment), I provide the following comment regarding what I believe should be Canada's role in Afghanistan.

I believe that the Canadian Government's position should be to remain firmly engaged in Afghanistan.  As directed by the Liberal Government in 2005 and maintained by the current Conservative Government, the period of engagement should continue until at least January of 2011.  January 2011.  Why January 2011?  I'll will explain why January 2011.   Did I forget to mention why we shouldn't change our mission until January 2011?

*Background*

*United Nations - Millennium Development Goals* (ref) - Eight goals to strive to achieve in every country in the world to reverse the grinding poverty, hunger and disease affecting billions of people.

*The UN Millennium Project *(ref) - A concrete action plan for the world to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.  The Millennium Project was envisioned as a developmental 15-year plan for nations to meet the MDGs by 2015 (having started at the turn of the Millennium - 2000).  (Download an overview report of the Millennium Project here)

*Afghanistan's Millennium Development Goals* (ref) (UN eight goals, plus additional specific goal - #9 - Enhance Security).  The Afghan government submitted and the UN reviewed an assessment of the initial starting point in its  (2005 AFG MDG Report ref).


*Afghanistan development - Support from the International community: from The Bonn Process to the London Conference.*

*The Bonn Process* - In December of 2001, several Afghan groups met in Bonn under UN support in order to develop a transitional process that would lead to democratic elections for a ‘broad-based, gender-sensitive, multi-ethnic and fully representative government’.  The resulting "Bonn Agreement" signed 22 December 2001, 

*The Bonn Agreement* (ref) 

(UN endorsement of the Bonn Agreement ref) 


*The London Conference* (ref) - The purpose of the Conference (held in London 31 January to 1 February 2006) was threefold:

1) To launch the Afghanistan Compact (see below), the successor to the Bonn Agreement. The Compact provides the framework for international community engagement in Afghanistan for the next five years. It sets outcomes, benchmarks and mutual obligations that aim to ensure greater coherence of effort between the Afghan government and the international community.

2) To provide an opportunity for the Government of Afghanistan to present its Interim National Development Strategy to the international community. The strategy sets out the Government's priorities for accelerating development, increasing security, tackling the drugs trade , and strengthening governance.

3) To ensure the Government of Afghanistan has adequate resources to meet its domestic ambitions and international commitments. 

Notes: 

1. A 2005 UK House of Commons Library Report, titled "Afghanistan: the
culmination of the Bonn process", makes a particularly good read for developing a background of contemporary issues in Afghanistan, and in particular, development assistance achieved up to 2005 and the events leading up to the Afghanistan Compact.  Time well spent reading this document.

2. A European view of the development process in Afghanistan - a good reference for those not familiar with and/or wishing to educate themselves on the Euro-centric view of Afghanistan's requirements.

3.  The German Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, addressed the attendees at the London Conference, providing a valuable linkage and acknowledgment of the progression of Afghan development from the Bonn Agreement to the Afghanistan Compact. (ref) 

*Afghanistan's ownership of the development process*

*The Afghanistan Compact *(ref)

- The Afghan government document presented at the London Conference in January 2006 as an action plan which, combined with UN acceptance of the AFG MDG Report of 2005 and presentation of an acceptable plan to initiated substantive rebuilding and development (the I-ANDS, see below) resulted in $10B being pledged from the International Community for investment in Afghanistan and to support the implementation of the ANDS for the following five years. 

*Afghanistan National Development Strategy* (ref)

 - The "international sponsor community-approved" (through the UN) rebuilding and development plan for the first five of fifteen years to work towards and achieve the UN MDGs.  Updates to be developed for each of the next two five-year development periods in sequence as the first five-year phase approaches completion in January of 2011.

- The five year plan that represents the initial five years of the overall 15 year effort to attain the UN MDGs (January 2006 until January 2011).  

Note: The "Interim-ANDS" (I-ANDS) was a draft of Afghanistan's submission/proposal to the UN describing how the UN-contributed resources would be employed to most effectively improve Afghan society.  It was accepted, along with the Afghanistan Compact, as a commitment from the Government of Afghanistan to the international community that reconstruction, rebuilding and further development would be consistent with and fully supportive of achieving the UN's Millennium Development Goals.  It was accepted at the London Conference and taken for action to implement as the ANDS.

Note: Important ANDS-related documents available here (ref) from the Afghan Government web site.

While this post was a bit longer than I had initially intended, I wanted to fully support my contention for why we must remain engaged AS WE ARE until January 2011.  It is why we changed our focus from the very limited Reconstruction in the immediate vicinity of the city of Kabul in 2005 to the multi-departmental "3D approach (Diplomacy, Development and Defence)" of the Government of Canada of 2006, moving to Kandahar province to forward the cause of rebuilding and developing Afghanistan in a manner that was entirely consistent with the government's support pledged to Afghanistan at the London Conference in January of 2006.  Canada pledged hundreds of millions of dollars at the London Conference, we signed on to the Afghanistan Compact, we supported the Afghanistan National Development Strategy, so we are bound as a Nation to remain committed to the successful implementation of the ANDS, something that will be achieved substantively by the ANDS' target completion date of January 2011 [_year corrected in edit_].  It is for precisely this reason that I believe Canada must continue the current mission, as is, until 2011 at least.  

How will the remaining ten years of the 15-year development plan to meet the MDGs in Afghanistan will go, and how will Canada support it?  That has yet to be determined, but I would suggest that it is exactly that question now, that Canada must actively consider.  That is what Parliament should be discussing, not how to disengage from a whole of government effort after only 60% of the work is done (i.e. only three of the five years of the ANDS implementation comprehensively supported.)

I invite those who feel that the issue is one worthy of consideration to at the very least, independently review the Afghan government's own policy and documentation as well as the UN policy regarding its Millennium Development Goals in general, and such goals are applied specifically to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.  If at the end of your assessment, you do not agree with others, there is nothing wrong with that.  It is the right of each person within a democracy such as ours to be able to hold and voice our individual opinions.  I would invite those with differing views to invest similar effort to educate me and others here on their own views -- something that would be most appreciated.  To simply rend forth platitudes generated by spin doctors or public affairs wizards, or so-called subject matter experts, however, without having applied consideration and critical though...well that would be disappointing.  Having personally experienced significant improvement in many regions of Afghanistan, and dearly wishing to return to continue assisting a proud people rebuild and develop their Nation, I hope that Canadians do take the effort to further educate themselves on the issue of Afghanistan to a point where they feel morally at ease with their position.

Regards,
G2G



p.s.  Just to help put some perspective on the issue to at least balance the view against those who think it's just George Bush and his lackey nations supporting continued presence of security forces in Afghanistan, this from the German government's position on Afghanistan Development (ref)



> ...
> *No reconstruction without security*
> 
> The state organs of Afghanistan are to be enabled to ensure stability in the country independently. To this end, training, advisory services and assistance are to be stepped up. Special importance will be accorded to support for the Afghan security forces. In order to accelerate progress, the German government helped initiate the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL) during its presidency of the EU. This mission started work in June, and will be pushing forward with the training of the Afghan national police. With some 37,000 soldiers, the Afghan national army has now reached about half its planned strength of 70,000. Increased efforts are needed here to increase its de facto readiness to deploy. The German government will continue its military contribution to maintaining security until such time as the Afghan security forces can ensure the security of the country independently.
> ...



...and from more of the German Foreign Ministry - "The civil-military approach – the prerequisite for effective reconstruction"  (ref)



> *Security and reconstruction are two sides of the same coin in Afghanistan. That is why the civilian-military approach forms the backbone of the international engagement in that country. Moreover, there is no contradiction between civilian reconstruction and military support. Both are necessary.*
> 
> In 2002 reconstruction workers arriving in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban and decades of fighting found shattered society and a war-torn country with most of its infrastructure in ruins, with no working state structures, no army, no police force. It was clear that the classic development aid concept was not going to work here. The whole spectrum of state activity first needed to be created. It was important to the international community's helpers – civilian and military – to persuade the Afghans that they were there as partners rather than occupiers.
> 
> Since 2002 much has been achieved. Experience has shown that coordination between civilian and military engagement is often essential. Civilian aid workers benefit from the secure environment created by the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr). Their cooperation with the Bundeswehr is of course voluntary, based on the recognition that both sides can work more effectively together. For that reason a dual civilian-military command has proved its worth in the reconstruction teams, aimed at equating the factors of stabilization and reconstruction.


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Jan 2008)

Mickey I. seems rather more muscular than _Citoyen_ Dion--but if we stay at Kandahar we will inevitably be involved in some combat, even in the mentoring OMLT role.  Incoherence still rules in Liberal policy:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=75c4e409-a50f-4e83-af0c-2aa219a3c2f3&k=61858



> The opposition Liberals are open to recommendations from John Manley's panel on Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said Monday.
> 
> Ignatieff hinted that the Liberals might fine-tune their own policy in light of recommendations, expected Tuesday, from a panel headed by Manley, a former Liberal cabinet minister appointed by the Conservative government to study the mission...
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080120/manley_panel_080121/20080121?hub=TopStories
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Jan 2008)

From the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee, well worth the read:

Submission to the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan: The Honourable John Manley, Derek Burney, the Honourable Jake Epp, the Honourable Paul Tellier, Pamela Wallin. 
http://euston-canada.spaces.live.com/blog/cns%213BC4D1C0051E0E5A%21312.entry

Committee members:
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/01/canadas-future-role-in-afghanistan.html



> Zachary Miles Baddorf, Journalist in Vancouver; Colette Belanger, Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan (CW4WA) Board of Directors, Simon Bessette, LL.B candidate, University of New Brunswick; Melaney Black, CW4WA, Victoria; Natalie K Bjorklund, MD, University of Manitoba; Marc-Andre Boivin, researcher, Université du Québec à Montréal Peacekeeping research group member; John Boon, Liberal Party activist; Ken Bryant, Associate Professor, Asian Studies, University of British Columbia; Jennifer Button, CW4WA – Victoria; Iona Campagnolo, PC, CM, OBC, Former Lt. Gov., British Columbia; Dominic Cardy, NGO director, Nepal, New Brunswick New Democratic Party; Mark Collins, Canadian Embassy, Kabul, 1975-77; Natasha Cowan, McGill University, business graduate; Stewart John Cunningham, Sess. Instructor, Historical Studies, U of T Mississauga; Steven Davis, Academics for Higher Education and Development, Montreal; Judith Desautels, Supporter, CW4WA, Amnesty International; Janice Eisenhauer, Executive Director, CW4WA; Lois Edwards, CW4WA, Manitoba; Cheshmak Farhoumand-Sims, peace and gender researcher on Afghanistan; L. Chris Fox, Doctoral Candidate, University of Victoria; Paul Franks, Professor, Philosophy, University of Toronto; John Fraser, P.C., O.C., O.B.C., C.D., Q.C., LL.D. (Hon.); Terry Glavin, Author, journalist, adjunct professor, UBC; Stephen Glanzberg, law student; Sanja Golic, MA researcher (Afghanistan education); Robert Gillies, Citizen, Toronto, Ontario; Richard Gordon, MD, Professor, University of Winnipeg (Books with Wings); Robert Harlow, Novelist, British Columbia; Najia Haneefi, Former Executive director, Afghan Women's Education Centre, Kabul; Daniel King, President, Conservative McGill; Ian King, Journalist, Columnist, Vancouver; Robert D. Lane, Res. Associate, Phil. & Religion, Malaspina U College; OJ Lavoie, Environment activist, McGill University; Jill Leslie, CW4WAfghan - Victoria Chapter; Bruce Lyth, British Columbia Young Liberals, vice-president; Flora MacDonald, PC, CC, O. Ont.Chair of CARE Canada; Dave Mann, Brantford, Ontario New Democrat, Euston Canada; Mark Masongsong, Liberal Party activist; Doug McArthur, Professor, Public Policy, SFU; Jim Monk, Ontario gay rights, trade union activist; Gareth Morley, Lawyer, Victoria; Jonathon Narvey, Journalist, editor, copywriter, Vancouver; Lyle Neff, Poet, journalist, critic, Vancouver; Lauryn Oates, Vice-president, CW4WA; Tom O'Neill, Associate Professor, Social Sciences, Brock University; David A. Pariser, Professor, Art Education, Concordia University; Ben Parfitt, Journalist, researcher, Victoria; Stan Persky, Writer, philosophy instructor, Capilano College; Karim Qayumi, Afghan-Canadian community leader, Professor, Director of Excellence for Surgical Education and Innovation, Vancouver; John Richards, Professor, Public Policy Program, SFU; Ferooz Sekandarpoor, Production Manager, Ariana (Afghan) TV, Vancouver; Madeliene Tarasick, CW4WA, Kingston; Beryl Wasjman, Institute for Public Affairs – Montreal; Axel Van Den Berg, Professor, Sociology, McGill University; Morton Weinfeld, Sociology professor, McGill University; Ariana Yaftali, Afghan-Canadian, Manitoba.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (21 Jan 2008)

A most excellent submission....there are few point missed and what is covered (everything) is covered well....thanks' Mark


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Jan 2008)

Afstan: A "misjudgment of historic proportions"--that is what those who oppose our combat mission are making, according to this piece by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon--
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080124.wcomment0124/BNStory/Afghanistan/home
which the _Globe and Mail_ chooses to publish *only on the Web*. Why not in the print edition? And the minds of those opponents will remain closed to his assessments and arguments despite their professed devotion to the UN (via Bruce Rolston):
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2008_01_24.html#006324



> Afghanistan is a potent symbol of the costs inherent in abandoning nations to the lawless forces of anarchy. That alone justifies international efforts to help rebuild the country. Lest there be any doubt, remember Sept. 11, 2001, and its worldwide reverberations. We learned then how a country, shorn of its civic institutions, becomes a vacuum to be filled by criminals and opportunists. In its chaos and poverty, Afghanistan became a home base for terrorism.
> 
> Must we learn that lesson all over again?..
> 
> ...



Rather better than what Prime Minister Harper has been saying. Please read it Stephen, Stéphane, Gilles and Jack. And all those self-satisfied pundits.

John Manley, for his part, put the case superbly. Here's a good post by Aaron Wherry at his _Maclean's_ blog 
http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dip&pid=101603&tid=101603&eid=62&so=1&ps=0&sb=1
(also via Bruce Rolston).
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2008_01_24.html#006325

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Jan 2008)

Update to previous--the "Comments" at the _Globe_ site are, er, revelatory:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080124.wcomment0124/CommentStory/Afghanistan/home

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Jan 2008)

And a great post by Terry Glavin:

UN's Ban Ki-Moon Says Troops-Out Stance "Almost More Dismaying" Than Taliban
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/01/ban-ki-moom-assails-troops-out-stance.html


> ...
> It's not the first time the UN Secretary-General has appealled to NATO-ISAF countries to maintain their combat-troop levels in Afghanistan to ensure the country doesn't revert to “a host for terrorist and extremist groups.” But this latest appeal was far more frank, candid, plain-spoken and stern than anything he's said to date, that I'm aware of.
> 
> After the Secretary-General's blistering rebuke, is it really possible to continue to take anyone seriously who says things like "It's time to move NATO troops out, and UN peacekeepers in"?
> ...



Read the whole piece and check the links.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Southern Boy (25 Jan 2008)

I guess the only thing worse than having an opinion is not having one.


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Jan 2008)

I wonder what M. Dion thinks about:

What's happening in Pakistan
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/whats-happening-in-pakistan.html

Especially Secretary Gates offer of direct military help to the Pakistanis.

Update:

Pakistan's Musharraf Says No US Troops
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-World-Forum-Pakistan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Jan 2008)

Afghanistan and Canada, reason and passion--If you take the Afghanistan issue seriously, watch the January 25 edition of TVO's "The Agenda". John Manley and Janice Stein (about whom I have not always been complimentary) speak very well about what is involved. The host, Steve Paikin (whom I usually like), tries overmuch to stir things up, with little success. Video is available here, on the right at "Watch Video". 
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=7&bpn=779114&ts=2008-01-25%2020:00:48.0
Please do.

Slightly less than an hour but well worth the time to consider matters put pretty starkly and, I think, honestly. An informed democracy, and all that...

John Manley made this strong observation: Professor Michael Byers "didn't have the courage" to appear before his panel. Quite.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-i-say-no-to-byers.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Jan 2008)

It's Ban Ki-moon's war 

A letter of mine in the _Globe and Mail_ (the title is theirs; mine was the one for this post):
http://199.246.67.249/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20080126/LETTERS26-15/Letters/commentLetters/commentLetters/4/4/16/

"*Pay heed to Mr. UN*

By MARK COLLINS
Saturday, January 26, 2008 – Page A22

Ottawa -- I find it curious that you chose to publish United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's article Being In Afghanistan Is Dangerous, Not Being In Afghanistan Is More Dangerous (Jan. 24) 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080124.wcomment0124/BNStory/Afghanistan/home
in the online edition only. Your general readership surely would have been interested in these words of his: "Our collective success depends on the continuing presence of the International Security Assistance Force, commanded by NATO and helping local governments in nearly every province to maintain security and carry out reconstruction projects."

In any event, Canadian politicians such as Jack Layton and Elizabeth May - who advocate having the UN take over the international military presence in Afghanistan - should pay close attention to the words of the UN's own Secretary-General. Though I doubt they will."

It's one of Norman Spector's "Letters of the Day".
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/LETT.htm

I sent the following letter to the _National Post_, January 24; they've not printed it. Don Martin is a journalist--it's never quite clear whether he's a reporter or a columnist--from Alberta. He likes to play the role of a hard-bitten, cynical, old-school newsman (but with a sharp sense of humour) who just calls them as he sees them and takes no guff from no-one. Unfortunately his vision is rather limited. He's basically all attitude and little cattle, as the letter I think demonstrates:

'No wonder Canadians are confused and ill-informed about the situation in Afghanistan. Don Martin, in his column "Canadian troops far from alone" (Jan. 24), 
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=b83b88f1-a339-4aa7-8559-5ccf520ca978&k=46155&p=1
purports, among other things, to explain where the troops of various countries participating in NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) are stationed. Unfortunately he gets quite a few basic facts wrong--all the more remarkable since he was in Afghanistan himself just half a year ago.

Australian troops are not partners with the British in Kandahar province; they are partners with the Dutch in Uruzgan. The Dutch themselves have not "locked in their 1,500 soldiers until 2010"; they are reducing their strength to around 1,100. Turkish troops are not in the east with the Americans; they are in Kabul and in addition provide a provincial reconstruction team in Wardak, just to the west of Kabul. The 3,200 Marines being sent to Afghanistan--not 3,500 as Mr Martin writes--are not to be stationed in the east. The 2,200 combat troops will be based in the south (and under the overall command of Canadian Maj.-Gen. J.G.M. Lessard, who becomes head of ISAF Regional Command South in February); the rest of the Marines will mainly train the Afghan National Police, wherever needed. The French are not in the north; they are in Kabul (the French also have six Mirage fighters based at Kandahar). And while there are some Romanians at Kandahar, as Mr Martin notes, the largest Romanian contribution is a battalion fighting with the Americans in the east.

What a lot of misinformation. Dear me.

References:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/23/2126197.htm
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EDIS-79JMYL?OpenDocument
http://www.genelkurmay.org/eng/uluslararasi/isaf.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4120 http://www.forces.gc.ca/dsa/app_bio/engraph/FSeniorOfficerBiographyView_e.asp?SectChoice=1&mAction=View&mBiographyID=63
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/ema/votre_espace/contents_in_english/afghanistan/03_01_08_french_forces_in_afghanistan
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=73b91e8c-37da-43e7-9ccb-2f06e345150c

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Jan 2008)

A goof of mine in letter to _National Post_ in preceding comment--Brits of course are in Helmand.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Jan 2008)

The world according to Hillier
_Ottawa Citizen_, Jan. 28
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=e1e25045-9b59-4ca1-88b9-a1d09d0cb7f2


> ...
> ON NEGOTIATION INSTEAD
> OF FIGHTING:
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Jan 2008)

UN chief gets it
What will it take for opposition to grasp Afghanistan mission?
_Toronto Star_, Jan. 31, by Lorrie Goldstein
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/01/31/4803730-sun.php



> If the Secretary General of the United Nations writes a powerful defence of the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan and nobody reports it, is that the same as if he never wrote it at all?
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-665982.html#msg665982
> 
> In Canada, apparently so. Sun reader Pav Penna recently pointed me to a remarkable column written by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for the Globe and Mail on Jan. 24, which the paper ran only on its website.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Jan 2008)

And a post at _The Torch_ (note the blog mentioned at the end):

Critically reviewing Afstan
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/critically-reviewing-afstan.html

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## Flip (31 Jan 2008)

An interesting comment in the National post today:



> Dion finds a way out for all
> John Ivison, National Post
> Published: Thursday, January 31, 2008
> 
> ...



The commentor seems to have a bias of his own... :
Here's the link


----------



## OkotoksRookie (31 Jan 2008)

Thank you,
The wealth of information and opinions here is invaluable. Some of the articles have brought tears of pride to my eyes. I'm not currently enlisted (something which I'm working towards) and admit I have been horribly ignorant to the numbers, statistics and even reasons for our country's involvement in Afghanistan. Unfortunately I'm not alone. My current coworkers, friends and a lot of the people I hear discussing the issue do not know what I have just read. I have copied several links and plan on distributing as much of it as I can to as many people as I can.
Also, every moral fibre in my body compels me to issue a 'THANK YOU'. To the men and women who wear the  on their uniform, you make our nation proud. I hope I can join you one day soon.


----------



## RangerRay (31 Jan 2008)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> UN chief gets it
> What will it take for opposition to grasp Afghanistan mission?
> _Toronto Star_, Jan. 31, by Lorrie Goldstein
> http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/01/31/4803730-sun.php
> ...



I can bet you if the General Secretary of the UN said that the mission in A'stan was unjust, it would have been front page news in every paper, and led on all the networks...  : 

The hypocrisy of the MSM in this country, and its incestuous relationship with the Liberal Party is not only disgusting, but dangerous for democracy.


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Jan 2008)

OkotoksRookie: Keep up the good work.  I've never served but a family member is now.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (31 Jan 2008)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> UN chief gets it
> What will it take for opposition to grasp Afghanistan mission?
> _Toronto Star_, Jan. 31, by Lorrie Goldstein
> http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/01/31/4803730-sun.php
> ...




i]Toronto Star[/i], Jan. 31, by Lorrie Goldstein
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/01/31/4803730-sun.php  ???


----------



## sgf (31 Jan 2008)

interesting article in today Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080130.wbyersdiscussion0130/BNStory/International/home


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Jan 2008)

Flip - Ivison has a sense of the wry.  Read that article again keeping in mind "declaring victory while attacking in the opposite direction".

The Liberals are begging Harper to let them off the hook by pressing him to be "nice" and be a "statesman".    They know that they are going backwards at 60 mph and are just praying that the Prime Minister can resist pointing it out.  

If I was the Conservatives I would be recording every glorious word out of Dion's mouth for use in the next election.


----------



## sgf (31 Jan 2008)

right! thats why Harper and the tories are doing so well in the polls


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Feb 2008)

A post at _The Torch_:

Jack Layton: Simply ignorant or just plain lazy?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/jack-layton-simply-ignorant-or-just.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Feb 2008)

This from the National Post




> ....A year of Liberal solidarity has shown signs of strain around Mr. Dion's position that Canada's combat operation in Kandahar should end as scheduled in February 2009.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Four thoughts:

1. Dion still hasn't a clue. (About anything).
2. The Liberals will support the Manley Panel
3. Bob Rae should not be put in the same slot as Dion and Layton.
4. If Keith Martin keeps this up (along with his position on the Human Rights Act) he will soon become the latest addition to the Group of Independents sitting in Parliament.

How many seats do you need for official party recognition?
I would actually consider voting for a Party of Independents with no coherent policy beyond representing their constituents.  I would like them running the government but they would be a nice addition to a mix of parties in a minority parliament.


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Feb 2008)

Two posts by Terry Glavin:

The Second Coming
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/02/second-coming.html

A Plea to Canadians from Afghanistan's Sima Samar: "Finish The Job You Started."  
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/02/plea-to-canadians-from-afghanistans.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## sgf (6 Feb 2008)

well actually it wasnt Canada that started this, perhaps the plea could be addressed to NATO


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Feb 2008)

sgf: By willingly accepting in 2005 that our main effort would shift from Kabul to Kandahar (under US OEF, not NATO, for the first half of 2006) we certainly did "start" something for which we bear some moral responsibility.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## sgf (7 Feb 2008)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> sgf: By willingly accepting in 2005 that our main effort would shift from Kabul to Kandahar (under US OEF, not NATO, for the first half of 2006) we certainly did "start" something for which we bear some moral responsibility.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



thats right we were there indeed under US OEF, so it was the states that started this


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Feb 2008)

sgf: I rather think it was al Qaeda with the willing acquiesence of the Taliban :.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## sgf (7 Feb 2008)

regardless of who started this, we seem to be agreed that it was not Canada


----------



## Gimpy (7 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> regardless of who started this, we seem to be agreed that it was not Canada



When they say "finish what you started", it doesn't refer to Canada being the aggressor or the one who started the fighting. It is in reference to us going over and helping. Think of it this way: UK, Canada, Soviet Union et al. didn't start WW2, but they did start a commitment to fight and to defeat the Germans, and they didn't give up after Germany took control of France, so they *finished what they had started*. If we leave Afghanistan we will have left our mission to help the Afghan populace and not finish the mission we started.

What you're doing now is just being petty with semantics.


----------



## sgf (7 Feb 2008)

perhaps thats how you read the blog, it wasnt the way i read it.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (8 Feb 2008)

I seem to recall the Liberal Government of the day firing up a battle group and launching it into Kandahar in January 2002 _under US command_...or have all the Dion apologists forgotten that?


----------



## sgf (8 Feb 2008)

sure the liberals did that, and i feel they were wrong.


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Feb 2008)

sgf: So, when there was general international agreement that a regime that harboured those who had engaged in the worst acts, ever, of international terrorism should be dealt with (as it was by other Afghans, aka the "Northern Alliance" with outside air and special forces support, no "invasion" by ground troops), Canada should not in 2002 have taken part in what was then seen (wrongly as it has turned out) as a mopping-up operation?

Wrong?  Why do you "feel" that?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (9 Feb 2008)

Toronto Star:    http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/302028


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'The House supports continuation of Canada's current responsibility ...' 
An edited version of the government motion on the mission in Afghanistan

Whereas, as set out in the Speech from the Throne, the House does not believe that Canada should simply abandon the people of Afghanistan after February 2009; that Canada should build on its accomplishments and shift to accelerate the training of the Afghan army and police so that the government of Afghanistan can defend its own sovereignty and ensure that progress in Afghanistan is not lost and that our international commitments and reputation are upheld;

whereas in February 2002, the government took a decision to deploy 850 troops to Kandahar, the Canadian Forces have served in various capacities and locations in Afghanistan since that time and, on May 17, 2006, the House adopted a motion to support a two-year extension of Canada's deployment in Afghanistan;

whereas the House welcomes the Report of the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan, chaired by John Manley, and recognizes the important contribution they have made;

whereas their report establishes clearly that security is an essential condition of good governance and lasting development and that, for best effect, all three components of a comprehensive strategy – military, diplomatic and development – need to reinforce each other;

whereas the government accepts the analysis and recommendations of the panel and is committed to taking action, including revamping Canada's reconstruction and development efforts to give priority to direct, bilateral project assistance that addresses the immediate, practical needs of the Afghan people, especially in Kandahar; 

whereas the results of progress in Afghanistan, including Canada's military deployment, will be reviewed in 2011 and, in advance, the government will provide to the House an assessment and evaluation of progress, drawing on and consistent with the panel's recommendations regarding performance standards, results, benchmarks and timelines; 

therefore, the House supports the continuation of Canada's current responsibility for security in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to the end of 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan, but with increasing emphasis on training the Afghan National Security Forces expeditiously to take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole so that, as the Afghan National Security Forces gain capability, Canada's combat role should be commensurately reduced, on condition that:

(a) Canada secure a partner that will provide a battle group of approximately 1,000 to arrive and be operational no later than February 2009, to expand International Security Assistance Force's security coverage in Kandahar;

(b) to better ensure the safety and effectiveness of the Canadian contingent, the government secure medium helicopter lift capacity and high performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009.


----------



## McG (11 Feb 2008)

> Too early to decide Afghan mission end date: Tories
> Updated Mon. Feb. 11 2008 4:04 PM ET
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080210/Afghan_nato_080211/20080211?hub=TopStories


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2008)

General Mackenzie comments on the proposed Liberal mission parameters

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080213.wcorules13/BNStory/specialComment/home



> Commentary
> *Not in my worst nightmares ...*
> 
> LEWIS MACKENZIE
> ...


----------



## geo (14 Feb 2008)

Heh!

Don't you love Gen Lewis MacKenzie?
Cut thru the BS and says it like he sees it!

That's my man!

CHIMO!


----------



## Reccesoldier (14 Feb 2008)

"During the times I reported to the United Nations as a field commander, I was appalled at the incomprehensibility of some of the orders issued from that organization."

The quote of the century for those of us who loathe the UN and all it's platitudes bickering and hand wringing


----------



## sgf (14 Feb 2008)

seeing as MacKenzie ran for the tories, i can hardly see him endorse any liberal mission parameters. he is more than biased.


----------



## Teeps74 (14 Feb 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> General Mackenzie comments on the proposed Liberal mission parameters
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080213.wcorules13/BNStory/specialComment/home



Ahhh, there is a reason why this soldier and General has the hearts still of many of us soldiers...  

 

If you read this Sir, many thanks!


----------



## aesop081 (14 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> seeing as MacKenzie ran for the tories, i can hardly see him endorse any liberal mission parameters. he is more than biased.



Since he did not get ellected and is not a serving politician of any party, he is free to say whats on his mind with no party "spin". I wouldnt call that being biassed.


----------



## sgf (14 Feb 2008)

I like MacKenzie, hes a very smart guy, isnt afraid to speak his mind. I still think hes biased tho


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Feb 2008)

A "poetic" interpretation of Lew MacKenzie's article:

ROE, ROE, ROE your troops
Gently brief the team,
Merrily, merrily,
Merrily, merrily,
War is but a dream.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo (15 Feb 2008)

sgf said:
			
		

> I like MacKenzie, hes a very smart guy, isnt afraid to speak his mind. I still think hes biased tho



We all are....  aren't you?


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Feb 2008)

Touche', mon chum.


----------



## sgf (15 Feb 2008)

As you said, we all seem to be.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2008)

Here is an interesting article by Canadian historian Robert Bothwell, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ that argues that Stéphane Dion is just following an old, well established Liberal, perhaps Canadian, tradition of being very, very cautious about saying “yes” to international _adventures_:



> War, peace and the Liberal party
> 
> Robert Bothwell
> 
> ...



One can take issue with a few of Prof. Bothwell’s assertions (the “hesitation” we learned from our First Wordl War experiences was not uniquely Canadian, most of the world shared it and the Vietnam War was not President Lyndon Johnson’s very own war: President Kennedy started the adventure (building on a modest training mission left over from the Eisenhower administration). But those quibbles about very Canadian intellectual blinders aside, Bothwell has the broad sweep right: it is too easy to say “yes,” and, having said it, changing over to “no” is very, very difficult.

I do not agree with Bothwell’s conclusion. There is no other model available to any *responsible* first world nation – only variations of the current “stand by your friends” one. We can and should try our best to constrain American unilateralism which, post 1960, has been very poorly managed – even when the “vision thing” has been clear, but we should not lose sight of the fact that the ‘shared vision’ of a half dozen or so modern, sophisticated, secular, law abiding democracies has proven to be almost always right over the past century or so. That’s the right model; it is the Truman/St Laurent model, we need to refine it, not replace it.


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Feb 2008)

WLMK's policy at the start of WW II was much like the current Liberal approach to Afstan: as little combat as possible. While English Canadian (yes, there were still such people then) public opinion compelled King to send the 1st Canadian Division to the UK in 1939, he intended to focus the Canadian war effort on the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan--training pilots in Canada--and on the RCN, with minimal involvement in combat (and thus casualties) overseas.

Events, and further English Canadian pressure, forced a much greater and bloodier involvement than King had intended (in order to avoid problems with Quebec).
http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/can-tac-air-bca-e.htm



> The Canadian government was not too receptive, however, to the first British proposals for setting up air training schools on its territory. Prime Minister King did not want Canada to get involved in the war by supplying pilots. In addition, he was concerned that the interference of imperial armed forces would not allow Canada to develop its own national air force.
> 
> But the proclamation of the state of war on September 10th, 1939, changed the situation entirely. The Canadian Parliament, having voted to support Britain’s war effort, had now to decide what form that support would take. Large-scale airmen training on Canadian soil seemed to be a significant contribution, and also one that would keep to a minimum the number of soldiers serving overseas...



As King stated in a radio speech, December 17, 1939:
http://collections.civilisations.ca/warclip/objects/common/webmedia.php?irn=5012659



> The United Kingdom Government has since informed us that, considering present and future requirements, it feels that participation in the Air Training Scheme would provide for more effective assistance towards ultimate victory than any other form of military co-operation which Canada can give. At the same time the United Kingdom Government wishes it to be clearly understood that it would welcome no less heartily the presence of Canadian land forces in the theatre of war at the earliest possible moment.
> 
> You will recall that, on September the 19th, the Government announced that a division was being organized for service overseas, and, as you are aware, no time is being lost in our endeavour to
> meet the wish of the United Kingdom for the early despatch of an Expeditionary Force.



King in effect coerced the Brits into agreeing with the first part of the first paragraph.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Feb 2008)

Good stuff from Salim Mansur (usual copyright disclaimer):
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Mansur_Salim/2008/02/16/pf-4851684.html



> The debate over Canada's role in Afghanistan is the type in which democracies engage, and Canadian soldiers on a mission in harm's way need to know they have the government, Parliament and the people of Canada behind them.
> 
> This debate, however, will be heard beyond Canada and it will indicate, despite spin doctoring, that a parliamentary majority is lacking for Ottawa to meet its obligation to the UN-mandated and NATO-led mission to support the Afghan people and the elected government in Kabul.
> 
> ...



Quite.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2008)

The political Left will unleash the dogs of war:

http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/02/when-tyrants-tremble-in-their-fear-and.html



> *When Tyrants Tremble In Their Fear, And Hear Their Death Knell Ringing. . .*
> . . .and friends rejoice from far and near, how can I keep from singing?
> 
> That old anti-slavery hymn rings especially clear today, the day after Valentine's Day, a day when people think about their sweethearts and friends, the 18th anniversary of the day the Khomeinist regime, by fatwa, condemned Salman Rushdie to death. Yet Salman lives.
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (20 Feb 2008)

I can see lessons for Afghanistan in this article. The bad guys will be around for a long time but the West has a limited patience with mounting casualties and cost.

http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20The%20Shadow%20of%20Tet.txt


27 January 2008
                                                 
The Shadow of Tet
                                                   
By Gwynne Dyer

        Forty years ago this week, the American public realised that the
United States was not going to win the Vietnam war. Lulled by assurances
that "progress" was being made in the fight against the insurgents,
Americans had patiently borne five years of growing military casualties in
Vietnam, but the Tet offensive shattered their illusions. Could the same
thing happen this year in Iraq?


Rest of article at link.


----------



## Reccesoldier (25 Feb 2008)

Afghanistan is not Viet Nam, is not Iraq, is not Somalia, is not Algeria, is not the Congo is not...

It's telling that Mr Dwyer fails to mention the single most insidious enemy the US faced in Viet Nam, namely the US media, and unfortunately *that* is a lesson we can take on board today.


----------



## GAP (25 Feb 2008)

An older article (Feb 13), but pointed.....

Not in my worst nightmares ...
LEWIS MACKENZIE 
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail February 13, 2008 at 6:20 AM EST
Article Link

Imagine, in a close election, the Liberal Party led by Stéphane Dion regains power with a slim plurality. Within 24 hours, Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier is issued new Rules of Engagement (ROE) for the Canadian Forces serving in Afghanistan. These are immediately passed to the Canadian commander in Kandahar and on to the battle group commander. The Lieutenant-Colonel tells his soldiers the ROE are effective immediately, and adds his comments:

Rule 1. You will no longer attempt to eliminate the insurgency threat to the vast majority of the local population in Kandahar province.

"That will be left to soldiers from other countries yet to be identified. You will redirect your efforts to being nice. Your commander will explain how this will be achieved."

Rule 2. You will provide security for the local population and construction projects but you will not engage in combat to do so.

"If you served in Bosnia, you will know how to do this. If not, others will show you how to place yourself in a dangerously exposed position between the attacker and the people you are protecting. That way, the attackers will have to go through you and you will be allowed to fire at them in self-defence. Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but remember, the people who gave us this order must know something we don't.

Rule 3. There will be no more "search and destroy" missions by Canadians.

"You will note the order says no more search and destroy missions. That being the case, I interpret the order to permit us to conduct "search" missions on even days of the month and "destroy" missions on odd days.

To make this easy to remember in the heat of battle - sorry, I meant while observing the enemy ... darn, I meant our nemesis, the Taliban - you will receive colour-coded ammunition. "Search days" will have blue bullets, with 50 per cent of them being blanks spread randomly in your magazines. Our superiors feel this gives the Taliban a more level field on which to fight.

On "destroy days," there will be red bullets and even though you can only fire them for two hours in any 24-hour period, we will at least have some opportunities to disrupt the Taliban's strategic objective, which is to retake Kandahar city.

Rule 4. Don't count on assistance from tanks and artillery or allied air-to-ground fire if you get into difficulty.

"Those weapon systems are much too warlike and really turn off the NDP who are supporting the new government.

It's going to be hard working around this caveat, but I promise to give it some thought and get back to you.

Rule 5. You are precluded from engaging in aggressive combat operations.

"We are serving as one of 11 national military contingents under NATO. The commander's mission is to defeat the insurgency and expand the secure areas in southern Afghanistan. When he tasks us to assist in such operations, I will be the one to give him the bad news that we don't do things like that any more."

Rule 6. As usual, politics, religion and sex will not be discussed during quiet periods. This rule also applies to these Rules of Engagement."No comment and stop snickering!"

When soldiers put their lives on the line, they expect the political direction they receive to make sense and be achievable.

During the times I reported to the United Nations as a field commander, I was appalled at the incomprehensibility of some of the orders issued from that organization. Never in my wildest nightmares did I believe a political party in my own country could conceive of options equally bizarre.

Training the Afghan army and protecting development and reconstruction operations without the security provided by pro-active military operations by Canadian soldiers significantly increases the risk to life and limb.

Retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie was the first commander of UN peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo
More on link


----------



## McG (12 Mar 2008)

> *Manley panel: Don't expect firm deadline for mission*
> Updated Tue. Mar. 11 2008 6:54 PM ET
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080311/afghanistan_vote_080311/20080311?hub=TopStories


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Mar 2008)

I do beleive that most North Americans thought this was a three or four year solution, and I daresay some thought it would be solved like an hour long mystery.
Insurgencies take an interminably long time to win, if anyone really wins. Look at Norhtern Ireland....well over 30 years.
I seem to recall there are four phases to an insurgency. I don't remember the names but here goes:

1. Propaganda phase - whipping up the publics emotions
2. Civil disobedience - ie sit ins, protests etc
3. Guerilla warfare - attacks on cell towers, planting IEDs etc
4. Open Warfare - 

The insurgency can move between phases and don't necessarily have to follow in order....in 06 the Taliban tried the Open Warfare thing, and are still paying for it, as they slipped back into the guerrilla phase...
Afghanistan could take a generation.....its not going to happen in 5 or 6 years, and Iraq will take longer.


----------



## McG (28 Mar 2008)

LEARNING FROM THE SEVEN SOVIET WARS: LESSONS FOR CANADA IN AFGHANISTAN


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Mar 2008)

MCG this link looks good.I'm particularly impressedwith the SWORD model, as it makes complete sense. 
Just as the individual can learn from the mistakes of others, armies can learn from the mistakes of other armies.
If you ask me, we should start teaching this material to our junior leaders NOW. They aboslutely NEED to KNOW this if we are to succeed with the "Full Spectrum Ops" vision....if that's what it's still called. Junior leaders must not only be tactically aware, but strategically aware as well.
Thank you for directing me to this link.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Apr 2008)

We need to be doing a better job at home as well.......

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=469477



> *Home-grown 'champion of Islam'*
> 
> Stewart Bell,  National Post  Published: Friday, April 25, 2008
> 
> ...



Since he seems keen to "migrate ASAP to an Islamic state as soon as it emerges", perhaps we can arrange for him and his friends to be transported post hast to the North West Frontier region of Pakistan. He may discover that they are a bit short on Internet, running water and heated accommodations in the winter, but this _is_ what he says he wants, right?


----------



## TylerSnap! (26 Apr 2008)

This guy's a douche.  There is nothing wrong with Islam but when dinks like this guy get all swept up in the fundamentalist extremism they only encourage racism and ignorance.  Note the fact that he is unemployed.  Most unstable people out there usually become the most vocal and extreme when they have to much time on their hands.  Like Hitler.


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Apr 2008)

This is an article worth reading:

The honest anti-war position: Support
New B.C. group aims to laud, not decry, Afghan mission
_National Post_, April 26
http://www.nationalpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=472578




> VANCOUVER -The rabble will gather again today, outside this city's main public art gallery on a large, downtown square, near clothing shops and record stores. A good spot for an anti-war protest.
> 
> As they always do, leaders of the group Mobilization Against War and Occupation
> http://www.mawovancouver.org/
> ...



Disclosure: I'm a founding member of the CASC.  More on Terry Glavin's blog:

An Afghan appeal: "I would like to thank you. . . do not abandon us. Don't forget us."
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/02/afghan-appeal-i-would-like-to-thank-you.html

Inside the cult that runs the "Mobilization Against War and Occupation"
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/02/inside-cult-that-runs-mobilization.html

Inside The Cult That Runs The "Mobilization Against War and Occupation": Part II (Check the photo.)
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/02/inside-cult-that-runs-mobilization_07.html

When Tyrants Tremble In Their Fear, And Hear Their Death Knell Ringing. . .
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/02/when-tyrants-tremble-in-their-fear-and.html

Forget the Silly "Anti-War" Parades. Put The Afghan People First.
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/03/forget-silly-anti-war-parades-put.html

Afghanistan: Do We Stay or Do We Go?
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/04/afghanistan-do-we-stay-or-do-we-go.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Apr 2008)

The strange contrasts of soldiering. A slide-show set to the song, by Paul of _Celestial Junk_:

If I Ever Leave this World
A Tribute
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/04/if-i-ever-leave-this-world.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 May 2008)

A post at _The Torch_:

ISAF: US getting really serious about stronger command role in south
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/05/isaf-us-getting-really-serious-about.html

Plus (update):

CDS General Hillier in the _Legion Magazine_
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/05/cds-general-hillier-in-legion-magazine.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (21 May 2008)

> Rae disagrees with Dion on Afghanistan
> Canwest News Service
> Published: Tuesday, May 20
> 
> ...


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=e1290549-b973-470d-9783-880f3c139229


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 May 2008)

It would appear that the Leafs just won the Stanley Cup playing on the newly frozen rink in Hell.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (21 May 2008)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> It would appear that the Leafs just won the Stanley Cup playing on the newly frozen rink in Hell.



 :rofl:


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 May 2008)

Terry Glavin
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/05/in-national-post-about-afghanistan-its.html
in the _National Post_:

Our Generation's Spanish Civil War
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=533347

The conclusion:



> The British linguist and historian Fred Halliday sets this historic "antiwar" misjudgment in these terms: "To my mind, Afghanistan is central to the history of the left, and to the history of the world since the 1980s. It is to the early 21st century, to the years we're now living through, what the Spanish Civil War was to Europe in the mid-and late-20th century."
> 
> What this means is that the heirs and successors of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion -- the brave Canadian volunteers who went to Spain to fight Franco's fascists -- are to be found today not in the main ranks of the left, but among the courageous young men and women of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the Vandoos and all those other Canadian regiments that are holding the banner high in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 May 2008)

As for ISAF command in RC South:
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-05-22-voa38.cfm



> The Pentagon says the agreement on command of NATO operations in southern Afghanistan, which it announced Wednesday, is not finalized. But officials still hope the plan will be approved. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.
> 
> Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell says he was "too emphatic" when he announced the agreement Wednesday. He had said the United States reached agreement with the Netherlands and Britain for those countries to each command the southern Afghanistan effort for a year, starting in November when Canada ends its rotation.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 May 2008)

Thought everyone would like a chance to pick apart each of the nine (highlights mine) - shared with the usual disclaimer...

*Nine reasons to oppose the war in Afghanistan*
Canadians should call on the federal government to withdraw from the conflict zone.
Rev Fred Cappuccino, Straight Goods web page, 26 May 08
Article link - .pdf version

[Editor's Note: this article is excerpted from a speech Rev Cappuccino gave at Algonquin College in Ottawa.]

I'd like to suggest nine reasons that Canadian Unitarians should oppose the Afghan War:

   *1. The current shaky regime is not worthy of defending with Canadian lives.*

      The current parliament of Afghanistan does have a token group of women — about 27. But the vast majority are drug barons. Thirty-four seats are led by one Hekmatyar Gulbuddin, 1 who, according to The Nation magazine, got his start throwing acid at women. He got 600 million dollars from the Americans. It is true that today in some areas girls are going to school, but that is only in some areas. Harmid Karzai's government rules only Kabul.  	

  * 2. From what I read, we are not winning the war, and we cannot win.* The military ever tend to be over-optimistic. Warfare for some is a kind of play activity — a sport.

   *3. Rather than discouraging the growth of Islamic fundamentalism, the war seems to be furthering Islamic fundamentalism*, which is outstripping the secular forces in Turkey, Egypt, and elsewhere. The reason perhaps is that fundamentalism is the only effective way people can resist US domination.

      The prophet Hosea said, "For they have sown the wind; they shall reap the whirlwind."

   *4. If I am not mistaken, about a third of our returning veterans are suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSS). Not only that, but apparently the Canadian Government is turning a deaf ear to their claims for medical treatment.* The government offers weak reasons like, "Sorry — you weren't there long enough — you don't qualify."

      How many Americans died in Vietnam? Somewhere around 50,000. But an astounding result of that war is that of the veterans who returned, many more than 50,000 committed suicide! Why would these young men and women commit suicide? Maybe because they suffered PTSS and could not find treatment.

   *5. Our own news media don't have access to the war zones. *We don't know — really — what our young men and women are being asked to do. We hope they are not as bad as the American woman soldier who with an attack dog was threatening a naked prisoner at Abu Ghraib. Now, this was likely a result of the indoctrination she received, but unfortunately she was the one who was blamed. Without press coverage, we don't know.

      Can we assume that Canadian personnel are different? Perhaps they are, but we do have the example of torture of prisoners by Canadian soldiers in Somalia. War does strange things to people, especially if there are no media to monitor the events.

   *6. Canadians are less safe overseas.* My wife Bonnie has been travelling in Asia for some 36 years. In most government offices she visited, they loved Canada. "Oh, you're from Canada! Come right in!" Bonnie was proud of our reputation as a country who led the world in peace-keeping. She felt safe as a Canadian. She saw American travellers with Canadian flags on their backpacks. They felt safer.

      But that all changed when Canada was dragged into George Bush's Afghan War. Canada has lost something very precious. Canadians overseas are now lumped together with what many see as war-mongering Americans.

      Arundhati Roy is the Indian author who wrote The God of Small Things. In a later book she points out that "since World War II the United States has been at war with, or has attacked... Korea, Guatemala, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan." That's sixteen countries. We can add the Philippines, Lebanon, Iran, Kosovo and Bosnia — and even that list doesn't include other countries where the CIA has covertly wreaked havoc. Some might possibly apply the term war-mongering to the US.

   *7. The war is brutalizing the Canadian people.* When General Hillier was criticized for turning prisoners over to Afghanistan officials to be tortured, Hillier's reply was, "Look, we are not babysitters."

      Large numbers of Canadians now say, "Well, perhaps torture is okay if it can save Canadian lives." What about the presumption of innocence? What about due process?

  * 8. Because of the war mentality, Canadians are losing our civil liberties.* It is always in the name of patriotism that freedoms are suppressed.

      Many of you are too young to remember the Dark Days of Senator Joe McCarthy. Back in the States we were really scared. A Methodist minister colleague was jailed for refusing to give names of people who attended his summer camp. My name was certainly on various government lists of dangerous people. Apparently I'm not yet on a no-fly list.

      We tend to forget Marshal Goering's statement after he was captured: "When a government wants to assume absolute power, they just point to an external threat. It works with any type of government."

      In Canada people are being harassed and intimidated. Just one example:

      The high school age daughter of family friends organized about a dozen of her pals to demonstrate on Parliament Hill in support of Tibet — at a time when the Chinese community had several thousand demonstrating in support of China. Later on she was called on her cell phone by the RCMP, who wanted to question her. She said, "Well, I'm on my way to work." They picked her up anyhow and took her away in a black van and questioned her:

      "Who was the organizer of your demonstration?"

      She said, "I organized it myself."

      "No, you're too young to do that. Tell us really who organized it?"

      "I organized it."

      "Why didn't you have a permit?"

      "I didn't know we had to have a permit."

      "Give us the names and phone numbers of the others in the demonstration."

      "No, I won't give you any names."

      "You realize that doing this kind of thing can go on your record, and you might have difficulty getting a job in the future."

      After about an hour of grilling she was released.

      My understanding is that the police are not supposed to interrogate a minor without a parent present.

   *9. Canada is spending billions on war that should be going to our children's medicare and education*. Ontario is talking about a lack of trained workers — a severe lack of nurses.

      The only winners to the Afghan and Iraq wars are the multi-millionaires who hide behind the names of their oil corporations and munitions companies.

      What then should we do?

      First, don't take my word for it that the Afghan War is a horrendous tragic mistake. Study it yourself. If we agree that the war is a huge boondoggle, then let's not be quiet bystanders. Canadian Unitarians, as individuals, as social action groups, as congregations, should become known as people who take a stand on the most important issue of our time.

      There is precedent. When the Vietnam War was in full swing, Daniel Ellsberg leaked the top-secret Pentagon Papers, outlining the real story of the horrendous things Americans were doing in Vietnam. Unitarians, through our Beacon Press, printed the whole thing. This was an illegal act. While the government was pondering whether to jail the Unitarian national Board of Directors, the New York Times took courage and also printed the Pentagon Papers. Unitarians played a huge role in turning the tide against the Vietnam War.

      Some time ago I was on a committee doing a Vigil for Peace in a United Church. Five hundred peace marchers were coming down from Parliament Hill. We had a dozen speakers scheduled to speak for three minutes each. My job was to seat them in the choir loft, in the order of their speaking, so as to save time getting them to the pulpit. I had their names neatly placed on the choir chairs. One woman came in, and sat down in the wrong place. I made small talk with her, and then said, "Well, um — your seat is over here."

      She looked at me and said, "It's all right. I'm an anarchist." My quick and agile mind considered several possible responses. But, in the end, I just laughed. I have always been intimidated by the weaker sex. Her name was Laurel Smith, from Vancouver Homes Not Bombs. In her 3-minute speech she had the entire audience standing and cheering. Anarchists of the world, unite!

_Rev Fred and wife Bonnie Cappuccino are founders and directors of Child Haven International, which operates eight homes for destitute children and women in India, Nepal, Tibet and Bangladesh. They have been married 37 years with two biological sons, and have adopted and brought up 19 boys and girls from 11 countries, most of them in the Far East. They have received the Order of Canada and UNESCO's prestigious Honorable Mention "for the teaching of human rights," the first time that this honor has been bestowed on Canadians. Fred usually blames everything they have done on Bonnie. They live near Maxville, Ontario. _


----------



## Good2Golf (28 May 2008)

Seems okay to me...  ;D

...well, except for #8.  It's actually because of the Canadian Human Rights Council that we're losing our civil liberties.





Un-believable!  Where to start?


----------



## Kirkhill (30 May 2008)

From what I read it seems, if I am not mistaken, we don't - really - know what the Reverend Fred's motives are and where his support comes from.  Sheesh.  :


----------



## dglad (30 May 2008)

Some of his points have merit (it is somewhat more hazardous for Canadians to travel abroad these days...but that's because it's just generally more hazardous to travel, thanks, in part, to the very people we're fighting in Afghanistan).  But some are just dumb.  Like #2...

"From what I read, we are not winning the war, and we cannot win. The military ever tend to be over-optimistic. Warfare for some is a kind of play activity — a sport."

Okay....

"From what I read."  Read where?  And written by whom?  Hardly indicative of thorough research, is it?

"We are not winning the war".  By what measure?  The April 21 issue of Macleans Magazine has quite a good article contending that development in southern Afghanistan is proceeding apace, and that concerns are starting to shift among the local population from security to more pragmatic matters like irrigation and road-building.

"We cannot win".  Again, by what measure?  Why not?  If winning means creating the conditions for the people of Afghanistan to get on with their lives while ensuring their own security and some degree of prosperity, then that's entirely achievable.  If "winning" means defeating the Taliban utterly and irrevocably in a military sense, well...maybe not so much.  But that's not the best way to defeat the Taliban in the long run, is it?  The Macleans article does a pretty good job of showing how the Taliban get less and less traction, the more confident the population becomes (which is generally how you defeat any insurgency).

"The military tends to be over-optimistic...a play activity--a sport".  Well, yeah, maybe the military is sometimes a little over-optimistic...but show me any corporate body that isn't from time to time.  However, what this really shows that the good Reverend knows very little about soldiers and certainly hasn't bothered to get to know any very well.  There are few as opposed to war as those who have engaged in it.  I know LOTS of soldiers who have been to Afghanistan, as well as Croatia, Bosnia, Haiti...US soldiers who have been to Iraq...older fellows who fought in Korea and the Second World War.  I know essentially NONE of them who say it as a "play activity" or a "sport".  I sure didn't see it that way when I was overseas.  At this point, the Reverend really falls into the ditch and shows this to be a op-ed piece, without any real substance behind it.

The rest of it...meh, it's not worth investing time in "dissecting", because it's just one man's opinion (to which democracy entitles him...ain't it grand?)


----------



## GAP (19 Jun 2008)

Pipeline opens new front in Afghan war
Canadian role in Kandahar may heat up as allies agree on U.S.-backed energy route through land-mine zones and Taliban hot spots 
SHAWN MCCARTHY From Thursday's Globe and Mail June 19, 2008 at 2:30 AM EDT
Article Link

OTTAWA — Afghanistan and three of its neighbouring countries have agreed to build a $7.6-billion (U.S.) pipeline that would deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan to energy-starved Pakistan and India – a project running right through the volatile Kandahar province – raising questions about what role Canadian Forces may play in defending the project.

To prepare for proposed construction in 2010, the Afghan government has reportedly given assurances it will clear the route of land mines, and make the path free of Taliban influence. 

In a report to be released Thursday, energy economist John Foster says the pipeline is part of a wider struggle by the United States to counter the influence of Russia and Iran over energy trade in the region. 

The so-called Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline has strong support from Washington because the U.S. government is eager to block a competing pipeline that would bring gas to Pakistan and India from Iran. 
More on link


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Jun 2008)

Damian Penny at _Daimnation!_:

On second thought, _don't_ help to reconstruct Afghanistan
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011448.html

MY comments giving some details of the gas pipeline project the Globe somehow managed to overlook until now, and on the paper's "journalism":
http://www.damianpenny.com/comments/display/11448

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (19 Jun 2008)

Not this _again_.  There's no pipeline.  There may be a plan for a plan for a pipeline, but nothing more...  See here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/70803/post-674252.html#msg674252

Even buried within the story itself is this gem:



> But Dr. Blank – who has written extensively on energy-related geopolitics in the region – *said he doesn't believe the TAPI pipeline will be built any time soon due to security concerns*.



...not to mention a need for a firm contract, funding, a Pakistan-India rapprochement, surveys and the myriad other things that need to be done before a pipeline could even be considered.

Of course, no amount of emperical data will allay the vast array of consipacies out there.  The G&M comments section is already filled with "gotcha" comments, saying that this story "proves" that our involvement in Afghanistan is indeed about "oil".  :

Given the sensitivies surrounding this subject, one would have hoped that the "journalist" (and his editors) concerned would have properly researched this piece before publishing.  Then again, I suspect that my expectations of the media remain too high.

Perhaps it's time for an Obama-like "fight the smears" website on Afghanistan aimed at an increasingly gullible public and the growing class of conspiracy theorists...

Ridiculous.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jun 2008)

C'mon, now, how else would the foil hat brigade continue their conspiracy talk?   Can't wait for the "oil pipeline as proof of hegemony" folks to pipe up...   :


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Jun 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> [...not to mention a need for a firm contract, funding, a Pakistan-India rapprochement, surveys and the myriad other things that need to be done before a pipeline could even be considered.



_And_ Pakistan would actually have to do something about the Taliban operating from their territory.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Jul 2008)

No military solution in Afghanistan
Political and economic development are the keys to combating al-Qaida along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border

It appears there is only one kind of news coming from Afghanistan and Pakistan these days: bad news. Violence and casualties are up, military options are down and al-Qaida has moved into a new safe haven across the Pakistani border. Seven years is a long time to be fighting to be back at square one. Whether out of necessity or innovation, it is time that American and European strategy in the region lessen its reliance on military force as its primary instrument and pursue a more robust political and economic development programme that can enable Afghanistan and Pakistan to reach a more sustainable and secure future.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/07/afghanistan.pakistan


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Jul 2008)

The media said the same thing about Iraq.There is a military solution but it will take time and it will take a much larger Afghan Army.Do we in the west have the patience for this fight ?


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jul 2008)

I took this explanation of Canadian views on he Boer War from the Canadian War Museum’s web site:

“While many English-Canadians supported Britain's cause in South Africa, most French-Canadians and many recent immigrants from countries other than Britain wondered why Canada should fight in a war half way around the world. Concerned with maintaining national stability and political popularity, Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not want to commit his government. Yet the bonds of Empire were strong and public pressure mounted. As a compromise, Laurier agreed to send a battalion of volunteers to South Africa.”

With only minor amendments is works for Afghanistan, too:

While many English-Canadians supported Britain's America’s cause in South Africa Afghanistan, most French-Canadians and many recent immigrants from countries other than Britain wondered why Canada should fight in a war half way around the world. Concerned with maintaining national stability and political popularity, Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier Jean Chrétien did not want to commit his government. Yet the bonds of Empire were strong and public pressure mounted. As a compromise, Laurier Chrétien agreed to send a battalion of volunteers battle group to South Africa Afghanistan. Later, Prime Minister Paul Martin expanded the mission and moved the Canadians to Kandahar province.

Cleaned up, it reads:

While many English-Canadians supported America’s cause in Afghanistan, most French-Canadians and many recent immigrants wondered why Canada should fight in a war half way around the world. Concerned with maintaining national stability and political popularity, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien did not want to commit his government. Yet the bonds were strong and public pressure mounted. As a compromise, Chrétien agreed to send a battle group to Afghanistan. Later, Prime Minister Paul Martin expanded the mission and moved the Canadians to Kandahar province.

_Plus ça change_ and all that!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (20 Jul 2008)

Good comparison, Edward.  Maybe there should have been a part about in 1899 there was a seditious decenter who was arrested and hanged.  The modern counterpart would be Jack Layton being given all the camera time he wants.


----------



## observor 69 (20 Jul 2008)

Obama urges focus on Afghanistan 

US Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, on a visit to Kabul, has said Afghanistan should be the main focus of the "war on terror". 

Speaking during his first trip to the country, Mr Obama called the situation in Afghanistan "precarious and urgent". 

Earlier, in talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, he vowed to fight terror "with vigour". 

Mr Obama's trip is part of a tour that will also include Iraq, other parts of the Middle East and Europe. 

"We have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent and I believe this has to be the central focus, the central front, in the battle against terrorism," Mr Obama said in an interview with the CBS programme "Face the Nation". 

More troops 

He said President George W Bush's administration had allowed itself to be distracted by a "war of choice" but now was the time to correct the mistake. 

Mr Obama said the US needed to start planning to send in more troops. He has called for an extra one to two brigades to be sent to Afghanistan. 

Rival presidential hopeful John McCain has criticised him for announcing a strategy before visiting the region. 

Earlier, in talks with President Karzai, Mr Obama vowed to fight terror "with vigour". 

Mr Obama, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel and Democrat Senator Jack Reed also discussed the drugs trade and US-Afghan ties with Mr Karzai, officials said. 

Mr Obama is later expected to visit Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and Britain. 

Correspondents say the Illinois senator is hoping to boost his foreign policy and security credentials, seen as the weakest aspects of his bid to win the presidency in November's election. 

Opinion polls suggest Americans regard Mr McCain, Republican senator for Arizona, as a better potential commander-in-chief. 

'Shared experiences' 

The senators spent almost two hours in talks with Mr Karzai at the presidential palace in Kabul, officials said. 


A spokesman for Mr Karzai, Humayun Hamidzada, told reporters the senators had pledged continued strong ties with Afghanistan no matter which party won the US election. 

He said the discussions had been at a "broad level", rather than going into detail, and had focused on the challenges facing Afghanistan and the region, including terror, the illegal drugs trade and corruption. 

Mr Obama had conveyed "his commitment to... supporting Afghanistan and to continue the war against terrorism with vigour", Mr Hamidzada said. 

Mr Obama, on his first visit to Afghanistan, made no public comment after the lunch meeting. 

The three senators had earlier talked to US troops over breakfast inside Camp Eggers in Kabul. 

"They sat with the soldiers, shared stories with the soldiers about what is going on in Afghanistan... shared experiences," said US military spokesman Lt Col Dave Johnson. 

In an interview with CNN last week, Mr Obama criticised Mr Karzai's government, saying it had "not gotten out of the bunker" and had done too little to rebuild the country's institutions. 

However, asked ahead of his visit what message he would convey to Afghan and Iraqi leaders, Mr Obama said: "I'm more interested in listening than doing a lot of talking." 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7516063.stm


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Aug 2008)

Terry Glavin lets fly:

The Unbearable Idiocy of Certain American "Foreign Policy" Wonks
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/08/unbearable-idiocy-of-certain-american.html



> Have a glance at Conn Hallinan's "Afghanistan: Not a Good War"
> http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5423
> in _Foreign Policy in Focus_ and you will be subjected to an almost pornographic illustration of the craven, shallow and moronic habits of mind that prevail within what passes for the intellectual content of American "anti-war" polemics.
> 
> All in aid of the case for abandoning the Afghan people by simply assembling the more powerful nation-state powers in the region and cutting a deal with the Taliban, the column begins with a revisionist straw man, ends with a silly and meaningless platitude, and in between, almost every paragraph contains a non-sequitur, a logical fallacy, or an embarrassing, transparent error. It's simply so bad, so shallow, so wrong and so stupid, one wonders where to start...



Read on.

I might add that, contrary to what Mr Hallinan writes, the Taliban did not exist when the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989 and the US had nothing to do with their creation. The Taliban only emerged, in Pakistan with ISI help, in the early 90s during the Afghan civil war, in which the US had very little involvement. Moreover the US had no direct links with bin Laden (see _Ghost Wars_, Steve Coll). While the Taliban did not attack the US, they allowed bin Laden to do so, and several times: the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam embassy bombings, the _USS Cole_, 9/11.

Then there's the unconquerable Afghan myth . 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/07/unconquerable-afghans-what-globe-and.html
Tripe indeed.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Celticgirl (7 Sep 2008)

Something is really starting to bother me: Every time a soldier is KIA in Afghanistan, I see threads of condolence on a few other websites just as on this site. However, unlike this site, the others generally have a group of idiots who respond with comments like "our troops shouldn't be there", "this has to stop", "bring them home NOW", "what a waste of life", "they died for nothing", etc., etc.  Personally, I think that the R.I.P. threads and the debate re: Afghanistan should be separate, as they are here (and this is the only site where I've seen it done successfully). What is wrong with people? What part of 'paying your respects' do they not understand?  

/rant


----------



## observor 69 (7 Sep 2008)

Good article in the New York Times. This is just the last page but the link will take you to the full article. 
Our mission in Afghanistan involves many factors in accomplishing the "latest" stated mission goals, some of which are a strong Afghan army and police.


 Right at the Edge 

Published: September 5, 2008 
(Page 11 of 11)

Fighting in Afghanistan, Abu Omar said, was a hit-and-miss, sometimes tedious affair: once across the border, he and the other fighters sat inside another safe house for two days, waiting for word to launch their attack. Finally, Abu Omar’s commander told them that there were too many American and Afghan soldiers about and that they would have to return to Pakistan. 

The Times's Dexter Filkins on the recent regrouping and strengthening of al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in remote areas of Pakistan. (mp3)The second time, the mission worked. Crossing into Kunar once more, Abu Omar and the other fighters attacked a line of Afghan army check posts just inside the border. Omar put his heavy machine gun to good use, he said, and four of the posts were overrun. “We killed seven Afghan soldiers,” he claimed. “Unfortunately, there were no Americans.” 
Their attack successful, Abu Omar and his comrades trekked back across the Pakistani border. The sun was just rising. The fighters saw a Pakistani checkpoint and headed straight for it. 
“They gave us some water,” he said of the Pakistani border guards. “And then we continued on our way.” 

VII. The Rose Garden

From the Rose Garden of the White House, you could just make out the profile of the Pakistani prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, sitting across from President Bush inside the Oval Office. It was Gilani’s first official visit and, by all accounts, not a typical one. That same day, July 28, as Gilani’s plane neared the United States, a Predator drone had fired a missile into a compound in South Waziristan, killing Abu Khabab al-Masri, an Al Qaeda poison and bombing expert. The hit was a significant one, and Al Qaeda posted a eulogy to al-Masri on the Internet a couple of days later. Gilani, according to the American analyst who was briefed by officials, knew nothing of the incident when he arrived in Washington. “They just did it,” the analyst said. The Americans pressed Gilani, telling him that his military and security services were out of his control and that they posed a threat to Pakistan and to American forces in Afghanistan. 

At the Rose Garden, though, appearances were kept up in grand style. Bush and Gilani strode from the Oval Office side by side. Gilani laughed as the two leaders stopped to face the assembled reporters. Over to the side, to the right of the reporters, the senior members of Bush’s foreign-policy team had gathered, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, John Negroponte. 

“Pakistan is a strong ally and a vibrant democracy,” Bush said. “We talked about the common threat we face: extremists who are very dangerous people. We talked about the need for us to make sure that the Afghan border is secure as best as possible: Pakistan has made a very strong commitment to that.”

“Thank you,” Gilani said, hesitating, looking at Bush. “Now?”

“Please, yes, absolutely,” the president said. 

Gilani played his part. “We are committed to fight against those extremists and terrorists who are destroying and making the world not safe,” Gilani said. “There are few militants — they are hand-picked people, militants, who are disturbing this peace,” he concluded. “And I assured Mr. President we’ll work together for democracy and for the prosperity and peace of the world.” 

And then the two men walked together back into the White House, with Rice and Negroponte trailing after them. 


Dexter Filkins, a correspondent for The Times, reported from Afghanistan and Pakistan from 1997 to 2002. He is the author of ‘‘The Forever War.’’

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07pakistan-t.html?pagewanted=11&_r=1&hp


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (7 Sep 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> What is wrong with people? What part of 'paying your respects' do they not understand?
> 
> /rant



I have seen many similar things.  I don't think they're doing those things to upset, or to disrespect.  As much as I disagree with them, and I do disagree with the sentiments that the Afghanistan mission is valueless, I do console myself with knowing that they really do believe what they are saying.  If I believed as they do, I'd be far less tactless then they're being.

On Another note,  the election has effectivly been on for 5 days and not even a mention of Afghanistan.  (I think it is a good thing)


----------



## pizzathahut (7 Sep 2008)

As Brigadier General Dennis Tabbernor stated in his report.


> _"The terror of 9/11 was born and bred in the lawless vacuum that was Afghanistan, a shattered land of shattered lives left desperate after 30 years of war and corruption. Around this vacuum swirled the regional turbulence afflicting Iran, Pakistan, China, India and Russia. An Afghanistan left unstable and vulnerable to the inrush of these forces would prove an immense incubator for terrors beyond the compass of imagination.
> 
> So, as part of a coalition, we went to Afghanistan. If we fail here, if we leave Afghanistan without security forces, without sound governance, without the rule of law, without an infrastructure and an alternative to narcotics, we will invite back the forces that spawned 9/11."_



Wish those Canadian's remaining ignorant of very real, very present threats to Canada at large would wake up and realize the days of Liberal serendipitous thinking no longer exist. When will these people wake up? After Russia or another bordering Arctic Country claims major parts of our North? After a Liberal pull out of The Stan and the fight comes here to our backyard? "Then" will be too late.

http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/index.aspx?lang=en
* the thoughts and expression in this post are those of a Civy**


----------



## George Wallace (7 Sep 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Something is really starting to bother me: Every time a soldier is KIA in Afghanistan, I see threads of condolence on a few other websites just as on this site. However, unlike this site, the others generally have a group of idiots who respond with comments like "our troops shouldn't be there", "this has to stop", "bring them home NOW", "what a waste of life", "they died for nothing", etc., etc.  Personally, I think that the R.I.P. threads and the debate re: Afghanistan should be separate, as they are here (and this is the only site where I've seen it done successfully). What is wrong with people? What part of 'paying your respects' do they not understand?
> 
> /rant



Thank you.  It is a decision that the Mods, Mike and other Senior Members made a while back and try to enforce, just for the reasons you have stated.


----------



## Celticgirl (7 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Thank you.  It is a decision that the Mods, Mike and other Senior Members made a while back and try to enforce, just for the reasons you have stated.



You are very welcome. It's nice to have at least one place online to pay my respects and not have to read inflammatory comments about the mission.


----------



## Lord_Stephens (7 Sep 2008)

For being a non military member I am all for helping Afghanistan out.  I am deeply sadden at how much loss of life as happened on all sides and I do hope it is worth it, what am I saying, bringing peace is always worth it!  My Islamic buddies are happy we are there to bring peace to a troubled region.  But most of them are angry at how long it took for us and the west to actually do something.  I usually tell them they could have done something too, it doesn't always have to be the west that does everything and they agree, and always say, they wish they have the money to do something.

I do hope other countries come to the aid of Afghanistan, and send what they can to get them to stop fighting.

I read some where the remains of the Taliban are nothing more then foreign extremists from other countries that really are not even welcome in their homelands.  Isn't that enough reason to stop fighting?  I guess when you had some sort of country over a country, or had a taste of power, you go a little crazy.

My wrong plan if I was in charge, was to get the Afghan people rebuilding their infrastructure (roads, schools, hospitals, they may need to work on generators until the power systems get built or they may need to import energy from other countries until they get their own power plants operational), plus get a security force trained to keep what remains of the Taliban at bay.  Next step would be to start building factories/energy/water facilities and get them running so the country can start to take care of itself and rely less and less on importing aid from other countries.  For areas that are hard to farm, build greenhouses or hydroponic farms, so they can feed themselves basically just get them standing on their own two legs.  Eventually the Taliban will see the Afghan people want peace.  But I am not sure if the Taliban will see reason and simply give up if this was the plan, the old fight to the end may be blinding them from reality.  I at least believe the average Afghan wants peace and want us there to help them.  And hopefully if we ever need help in the future they can return the favour.  (If we need help).


----------



## GAP (3 Oct 2008)

U.S. strategy in Afghanistan will fail, leaked cable says
By Elaine Sciolino Published: October 3, 2008
Article Link

A coded French diplomatic cable leaked to a French newspaper quotes the British ambassador in Afghanistan as predicting that the NATO-led military campaign against the Taliban will fail. Not only that, but the best solution for the country will be the installation of an "acceptable dictator," the British envoy reportedly added.

"The current situation is bad, the security situation is getting worse, so is corruption, and the government has lost all trust," Sherard Cowper-Coles, the British envoy is quoted by Jean-François Fitou, the deputy French ambassador to Kabul and the author of the cable, as saying.

The two-page cable - which was sent to the Élysée Palace and the French Foreign Ministry on Sept. 2, and was leaked to the investigative and satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaîné, which printed excerpts in its Wednesday edition - said that the NATO-led military presence was making it harder to stabilize the country.

"The presence of the coalition, in particular its military presence, is part of the problem, not part of its solution," Cowper-Coles was quoted as saying. "Foreign forces are the lifeline of a regime that would rapidly collapse without them. As such, they slow down and complicate a possible emergence from the crisis."

Within 5 to 10 years, the only "realistic" way to unite is for it to be "governed by an acceptable dictator," the cable said, adding that "we should think of preparing our public opinion" about such an outcome.

Cowper-Coles, as quoted, was critical of both U.S. presidential candidates, who have vowed in their campaigns to substantially increase U.S. military support to fight the Taliban for Afghanistan if elected president.

In the short run, "it is the American presidential candidates who must be dissuaded from getting further bogged down in Afghanistan," he is quoted as saying.

On Wednesday, General David McKiernan, the senior U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, called on NATO to send more troops and other support as soon as possible to counter the insurgency.

British officials said that the comments attributed to Cowper-Coles were distorted and did not reflect official British policy.

"It's not for us to comment on something that is presented as extracts from a French diplomatic telegram, but the views it quotes are not in any way an accurate representation of the government's approach," said a spokeswoman for the British Foreign Office, who, like other French and British officials, spoke on condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules.

The official confirmed, however, that the two men did have a meeting, but said that the British ambassador's comments were taken out of context. The ambassador's deputy was also present at the meeting, according to the French cable.

But Cowper-Coles, a British career foreign service officer who has served as ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Israel, is known for his frank talk, and other British officials who know him say that his words rang true.

Fitou, meanwhile, is considered a responsible and precise diplomat who would be unlikely to misreport a conversation, a senior French official said.

It is unclear whether the two men spoke in English or French.
More on link


----------



## koopa (23 Oct 2008)

Obama favours U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081022.wcampaign_speech23/BNStory/Afghanistan/home
PAUL KORING 

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

October 22, 2008 at 7:55 PM EDT

WASHINGTON — Sounding presidential, Senator Barack Obama said Wednesday he would order a surge of U.S. troops – perhaps 15,000 or more – to Afghanistan as soon as he reached the White House.

“We're confronting an urgent crisis in Afghanistan,” Mr. Obama, the Democratic contender and now clear front-runner to replace George W. Bush, said Wednesday.

“It's time to heed the call … for more troops. That's why I'd send at least two or three additional brigades to Afghanistan,” he said in his most hawkish promise to date.

A U.S. army brigade includes about 5,000 soldiers along with tanks, armoured personnel carriers and helicopter gunships.


Seeking to deflect attacks that he is dangerously inexperienced in foreign policy, Mr. Obama huddled with a high-profile panel of experts before a news conference aimed at showcasing his command of global affairs.

“The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large and plotting,” he said, echoing Mr. Bush's oft-repeated refrain.

But he was quick to blame Mr. Bush for miring the United States in a pointless war and wrecking its reputation abroad. 

“We must be vigilant in preventing future attacks, he said. “We're fighting two wars abroad [and] we're facing a range of 21st-century threats from terrorism to nuclear proliferation to our dependence on foreign oil, which have grown more daunting because of the failed policies of the last eight years.”

Mr. Obama, speaking in Virginia, a once-solidly Republican state that now could swing Democratic, warned that his rival, John McCain, a decorated former naval officer and combat pilot who endured years of torture as a prisoner of war, would lead America into more danger if he becomes president.

“Senator McCain has supported the key decisions and core approaches of President Bush. As president, he would continue the policies that have put our economy into crisis and, I believe, endangered our national security.”

As the deepening economic crisis has all but eclipsed other issues in the final few weeks of the campaign, Mr. McCain has repeatedly tried to shift the debate and portray Mr. Obama as unready to cope with foreign challenges.

Earlier this week Joe Biden, the Democrat vice-presidential candidate, predicted that unspecified foreign adversaries would attempt to challenge an inexperienced young president, just as the Cuban Missile Crisis tested president John F. Kennedy in 1962, but claimed Mr. Obama would rise to the occasion.

That assurance prompted a new jibe from Mr. McCain: “I know how close we came to a nuclear war and I will not be a president that needs to be tested. I have been tested, Senator Obama has not.”

Mr. Obama, at 47, is nearly a quarter-century younger than Mr. McCain and was a toddler in Hawaii during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

While Republicans paint Mr. Obama as dangerously naive, the first-term senator from Illinois has shot back by saying Mr. McCain is just wrong-headed

“We can't afford another president who ignores the fundamentals of our economy while running up record deficits to fight a war without end in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Oct 2008)

Here's my take on the whole thing. It's really quite simple in my mind, because I am a bit simple.
Why are we in Afghanistan? Ulitmately, because we are protecting a flock from predators. We send sheepdogs and shepherds out to protect flocks of sheep from predators don't we? Why not the same for human beings?
Even after all that has happened to my family since September 3rd, I now more than ever beleive that these predators need to be eradicated, with extreme prejudice if necessary.
And please, no one start with geopolitical arguments.


----------



## gun runner (3 Nov 2008)

No geopolitical arguments here OldSolduer. That is the task at hand isn't it? To eradicate these 'predators' before they can harm? My brother was on the same tour as your son, Mike... and actually assisted in Mikes training over there. He will be missed. We have the obligation to the people of Afghanistan to eradicate, if necessary, this menace we are facing over there. I say... again, lets roll up our sleeves and get this job done,and done right the first time, so that we wont have to go back and do it again.With respects MWO. Ubique


----------



## Retired AF Guy (5 Nov 2008)

Stumbled across this webpage the other day and thought people might be interested. Its the Program for Culture and Conflict Studies. Its mandate is to conduct*"research in support of United States initiatives in Afghanistan. Our research provides comprehensive assessments of provincial and district tribal and clan networks in Afghanistan, anthropological assessments of Afghan villages, and assessments of the operational culture of Afghan districts and villages." * 

The site has some very interesting links on the ethnic and tribal breakdown of Afghanistan, tribal history, leadership, the ANA and ANP. 

The CCS also produces a THE CULTURE AND CONFLICT REVIEW. In the latest copy I found this interesting article: Update from Kandahar: A City in Crisis and Implications for NATO by Conrad Jennings, 11/1/2008. The article covers the local situation, including perceptions of the locals, Taliban operations, and NATO/Canadian operations and how they are viewed by the locals. I haven't read the who article, but did a quick perusal and noticed a couple of things that stood out. 

"_There is a firm perception among former mujahedeen fighters and Taliban commanders that Canadians do not pursue attackers once they are attacked._" This is compared to the Russians who would pursue the muj right back to their homes and kill them.
- "_Negotiations with the Taliban are widely advocated by many and this process has failed to get off the ground. One of the major problems with this .....is that any call for negotiations is seen as a sign of weakness. You are only asking to negotiate because you are loosing, the argument goes, and it does not seem too far away from the truth_." D'uh. Of course its seen as a sign of weakness. Unfortunately, to many of Western leaders have jumped on this bandwagon and its probably to late to do anything.

Once I get a chance to read the whole article I will try to post more info.


----------



## Franko (8 Nov 2008)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> "_There is a firm perception among former mujahedeen fighters and Taliban commanders that Canadians do not pursue attackers once they are attacked._" This is compared to the Russians who would pursue the muj right back to their homes and kill them.



There is a reason for this....the attackers are normally all killed, thus no one to chase.

Regards


----------



## TheHead (8 Nov 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Something is really starting to bother me: Every time a soldier is KIA in Afghanistan, I see threads of condolence on a few other websites just as on this site. However, unlike this site, the others generally have a group of idiots who respond with comments like "our troops shouldn't be there", "this has to stop", "bring them home NOW", "what a waste of life", "they died for nothing", etc., etc.  Personally, I think that the R.I.P. threads and the debate re: Afghanistan should be separate, as they are here (and this is the only site where I've seen it done successfully). What is wrong with people? What part of 'paying your respects' do they not understand?
> 
> /rant



I agree with you. I sent an email to CTV expressing my disgust, in a professional tone on how they allow comments on articles about killed Canadians but not on other aspects of the war (That I have seen).  I got a generic email back stating that it's an emotional subject and will stay as it is.


----------



## PanaEng (8 Nov 2008)

I've been reading some of the posts from MarkOttawa and I figure I can lend a hand in disseminating information. 
From the site http://afghanistan-canada-solidarity.org/ I found that they have a facebook group. So, even if I don't have a big facebook presence, I will be adding this group to my profile and invite all my friends to it:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=9740534851
and suggest they do the same.

Hopefully, some of you here have a few friends in facebook or other social networking sites (with appropriate perssec info) and can do the same.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## pinko (14 Nov 2008)

" Why we should be there (or not)"

Good morning. I am a civilian and have come here at the direction of another poster in another forum. I take the position that the Nato forces ought to vacate Afghanistan at the first available opportunity and let the Americans continue their so called war on terror if that is what they choose to continue to do.

Afghanistan has been occupied for some seven years now and and there is very little tangible evidence that the life of the ordinary Afghan is better in a material sense. History has shown that conquests by previous imperial powers have failed in subduing the peoples of this region and there is every reason to believe that will continue to be the case.


----------



## helpup (14 Nov 2008)

Having been there, I take issue with the Afghan has been occupied by NATO line of thought.  Then again thought would have to go into your statement so, lets just say I take issue with what you said.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (14 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> " Why we should be there (or not)"
> 
> Good morning. I am a civilian and have come here at the direction of another poster in another forum. I take the position that the Nato forces ought to vacate Afghanistan at the first available opportunity and let the Americans continue their so called war on terror if that is what they choose to continue to do.
> 
> Afghanistan has been occupied for some seven years now and and there is very little tangible evidence that the life of the ordinary Afghan is better in a material sense. History has shown that conquests by previous imperial powers have failed in subduing the peoples of this region and there is every reason to believe that will continue to be the case.



 Goto Afghanistan and start asking thier populous if they wish us to leave or not? Some will more than likely wish us to be out, but the majority are probably happy that they have some semblance of a stable government and police force to deal with the unruly ones who think throwing acid on little girls is an "acceptable" practice to get thier message out to the world.

 Yes we need to be there, yes we need to deal with the people who do things of this nature, and until Al Q and the Taliban are delt with in a military fashion and brought to thier knees and finally accept that they ARE NOT and WILL NOT be rulers of the people in Afghanistan ever again will the mission be completed.

Cheers.

P.s This is not a CONQUEST by nato or anyone, this is a LIBERATION from terror.


----------



## geo (14 Nov 2008)

Ummm Pinko

The TB government of Afghanistan & their ally Al Quaida did an unilateral declaration of war on the US when they had their operatives sieze aircraft and had them plow into the World trade centre, the Pentagon AND potentialy the White House - had they not been forced to crash into a field.... that is fact - unarguable fact.

While other nations have criticized the US for their actions in Iraq, no national leader has ever criticized the US for their decision to pursue the TB & AQ in Afghanistan.

NOW, The TB Government was overthrown and legitimate democratic elections were conducted.  A parliament and a president (with all their flaws) control the country as best they can.

The standing government of Afghanistan has asked for international aid (UN) and the UN has asked NATO for it's support in protecting the interests of the Afghan people.

Do you agree with the policies of the Taliban ???

Do you think the average Afghan citzen (men & women) agree with the Taliban & their henchmen throwing acid in the face of girls - just because they are going to school?


----------



## pinko (14 Nov 2008)

"Do you agree with the policies of the Taliban"

You certainly are an insular group. I don't particularly care what policies the Taliban may have nor do I buy into the hype used to justify the continued occupation of Afghanistan.

I do note that jingoism is alive and well here though.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (14 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> "Do you agree with the policies of the Taliban"
> 
> You certainly are an insular group. I don't particularly care what policies the Taliban may have nor do I buy into the hype used to justify the continued occupation of Afghanistan.
> 
> I do note that jingoism is alive and well here though.



 First of all Afghanistan is not "OCCUPIED" as you so put it, we are there by request of thier people and government. We are NOT there to take over thier country nor their way of life. We are there to free the people from Reliqious fanaticism and thier extremist way of life. We are there to allow ALL thier people to flourish in the same manner you or i do, peacefully and without persecution.

 If you do not "CARE" about the Talibans policy why should you care about what the CF is doing?

Cheers and bubye.


----------



## helpup (14 Nov 2008)

I just love the mentality of those who espouse that we are Occupying Afghanistan........ no really I truly do as it shows their mentality in a very humorous way.  I do take issue with it but only if they are willing to debate it, since Pinko will follow trend and not take any debate other then their own. I have to fall back at being amused.  Naive children are so special, but should not be taken seriously.


----------



## geo (14 Nov 2008)

We're the insular group ???

by the sound of it... you're the one who wants to isolate yourself



> Jingoism is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy". In practice, it refers to the advocation of the use of threats of or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what they perceive as their country's national interests.



Safeguarding our national interests ??? where do you get that idea ???
We are there at the behest of the Afghan government.  We have no particular national interest in Afghanistan other than being moral citzens of the world - helping a country come out of the dark ages.

Nice to know that you've learned some fancy words in school.... too bad you really don't know what they mean and whether the shoe fits before applying it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Nov 2008)

The aptly named Pinko falls into the category of _soon to be sadly disappointed_ Canadians described in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today's _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=684e68f1-01e0-4805-8b86-d4c5e961ade0


> Jack Granatstein
> Obama and Canadians
> *Liberals here cheered after the U.S. election, but anti-Americanism in Canada isn't a tap you can turn on and off*
> 
> ...




There is a large, strong and _organized_ anti-military faction in Canada. It _was_ rooted, in the '30s, '40s, and '50s in Stalin's old, defunct _COMINFORM_ and _COMINTERN_ but it survived Stalin and B&K and all the rest and sustained itself on a mix of juvenile, knee-jerk anti-Americanism, moral relativism, and a (self-induced) sense of moral superiority. The _movement_ never met a murdering tyrant it could not excuse because (s)he was/is poor or black or just *not us*.

As we can see, clearly, from the horror story of the schoolgirls and the acid throwing terrorists, Pinko is willfully blind to the most basic facts. We – ISAF, NATO and especially Canada have done 'good' – girls couldn't even go to school a few years ago – and we are winning. We know we're winning because the pond scum people Pinko evidently supports are reverting to random acts of terrorism against the weak and defenceless because that's all they can manage.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> "Do you agree with the policies of the Taliban"
> 
> You certainly are an insular group. I don't particularly care what policies the Taliban may have nor do I buy into the hype used to justify the continued occupation of Afghanistan.
> 
> I do note that jingoism is alive and well here though.



You must be from Rabble.ca.

It's nice that you don't care what the politics of the Taliban are nor do you buy into the hype of the "illegal war" and the evil occupation bla bla bla.
Luckily for the people of Afghanistan many of us DO care what happens to them.

The people we're fighting against are people who walk into schools and give little girls the burka test. Thats where they throw acid in the faces of little girls, anyone wearing a burka "passes" the test. Ones that don't are treated to an acid facial.
You'll have some clever retort no doubt-but no one here is really going to care. We have bigger issues to worry about.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (14 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> "Do you agree with the policies of the Taliban"
> 
> You certainly are an insular group. I don't particularly care what policies the Taliban may have nor do I buy into the hype used to justify the continued occupation of Afghanistan.
> 
> I do note that jingoism is alive and well here though.



I should know better but...

NATO is not occupying Afghanistan.  We are supporting the democratically elected government of Afghanistan against terrorists and insurgents, many of whom are foreigners.  Families in Afghanistan seem to want to send their children to school and have opportunties for progress and advancement.  We are supporting the people of Afghanistan and working to ensure our own security at the same time.  The Taliban allowed themselves to become intertwined with Al-Queda, and that brought the coalition to Afghanistan.

To leave Afghanistan would be to doom them to another open civil war that would still invovle foreign fighters and foreign interests.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> You certainly are an insular group. I don't particularly care what policies the Taliban may have nor do I buy into the hype used to justify *the continued occupation of Afghanistan.*
> 
> *I do note that jingoism is alive and well here though.*


I note the irony of criticising jingoism while subjecting us to more jingoism.


----------



## Franko (14 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> "Do you agree with the policies of the Taliban"
> 
> You certainly are an insular group. I don't particularly care what policies the Taliban may have nor do I buy into the hype used to justify the continued occupation of Afghanistan.
> 
> I do note that jingoism is alive and well here though.



Ummmm....'kay. So what do you propose Canada/ NATO do? 

You've identified a problem (your personal opinion) so what is the answer? Don't leave out any details either.

You sparked a discussion...so don't just come in here and troll. 

Hell, even Steve Staples comes in here and tries to have a discussion.

Regards


----------



## pinko (14 Nov 2008)

Okay freedom fighter. I am aware of Steve Staples position on the issues. It seems to me that Canada would be better served by leaving the combat effort to the Americans and concentrate instead on helping the Afghans in developing an effective policing and judicial system. 

The occupation of Afghanistan is largely a strategic effort related to developing petroleum pipelines and it is to this end I see this incursion by the Bush Adminstration and it's stated desire to capture the AlQueada leadership as something they should do on their own. It is interesting to note that the Americans are now considering initiating a dialogue with the so called Taliban with a view to some sort of reconciliation and common ground for peace.

As a civilian whose taxpayer dollars are presumably paying for this effort I am quite concerned that our government has followed the USA lockstep in this incursion while at the same time stripping civil liberties here in Canada in the name of the so called war on terror.

I see no valid reason to support the bully to the south of us just so you and your fraternity might feel good about your cause.

That my point of view doesn't meet with your approval or preconceived standard doesn't bother me in the least.


----------



## soccer08 (14 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> As a civilian whose taxpayer dollars are presumably paying for this effort I am quite concerned that our government has followed the USA lockstep in this incursion while at the same time stripping civil liberties here in Canada in the name of the so called war on terror.



What civil liberties are in jeopardy here in Canada?? ???


----------



## Snafu-Bar (14 Nov 2008)

Once again we are NOT occupying thier country, we are not squatting to rule thier way of life. We ARE there to rebuild and educate, but that also means being in harms way of those who wish to keep thier Fanatical regime in place by ANY means necessary. Thus we are forced to defend ourselves and other innocent people from being targeted by these people.

 When people aren't having acid thrown on them or having bombs go off in thier markets will the mission be complete.

 Any and all money spent on curbing mindsets such as the Taliban and Al Qeuida is a dollar WELL SPENT!

Cheers.


----------



## Celticgirl (14 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> The occupation of Afghanistan



Others have already stated that the CF and its NATO allies are not occupying Afghanistan. Repeating a fallacy over and over again does not make it true.



> is largely a strategic effort related to developing petroleum pipelines



What petroleum pipelines? Please elaborate and give support to your claim (not just rumour and gossip).



> As a civilian whose taxpayer dollars are presumably paying for this effort



Military personnel pay taxes, too.



> I am quite concerned that our government has followed the USA lockstep in this incursion while at the same time stripping civil liberties here in Canada in the name of the so called war on terror.



Stripping which civil liberties exactly? Again, please be specific and include support for this argument. 



> I see no valid reason to support the bully to the south of us just so you and your fraternity might feel good about your cause.



Fraternity? Well, let's just hope you never need the military to come to your assistance for anything since you think so little of our country's Department of National Defense.  :



> That my point of view doesn't meet with your approval or preconceived standard doesn't bother me in the least.



Spewing untruths and gossip DOES bother _me_, though. If you disagree with the mission, that's fine. However, don't spread BS around and then fail to back up any of what you are claiming. Furthermore, don't come to a forum where the vast majority of members are military and make anti-military slurs. This is why many of us have already formed the opinion that you are a TROLL.  :


----------



## pinko (14 Nov 2008)

Settle down boys. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnsecurity/


----------



## Snafu-Bar (14 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> Settle down boys.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnsecurity/




 Everything in there pertains to people who are doing something they know they shouldn't be doing. Which means if your a terrorist then look out, if your not a terrorist then relax all will be fine you have nothing to worry about.

 Self explanatory.


----------



## Redeye (14 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> Settle down boys.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnsecurity/



Yeah, there's nothing in there that really makes me fear for my civil liberties, since, y'know, I'm not a terrorist.  There's nothing much at all that concerns me here being a fairly vigourous support of civil liberties either.  And nothing you've said about Afghanistan makes any sense to me either, except for you parrotting a lot of discredited nonsense - or at least - summaries of it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> It seems to me that Canada would be better served by leaving the combat effort to the Americans and concentrate instead on helping the Afghans in developing an effective policing and judicial system.



Fine, you've stated that.  You have not explained why you think that.



> The occupation of Afghanistan is largely a strategic effort related to developing petroleum pipelines and it is to this end I see this incursion by the Bush Adminstration and it's stated desire to capture the AlQueada leadership as something they should do on their own.



*sigh*



> It is interesting to note that the Americans are now considering initiating a dialogue with the so called Taliban with a view to some sort of reconciliation and common ground for peace.



Do you have a reference to support that?  Anything?



> As a civilian whose taxpayer dollars are presumably paying for this effort I am quite concerned that our government has followed the USA lockstep in this incursion while at the same time stripping civil liberties here in Canada in the name of the so called war on terror.



You, like me and all other taxpayers, have the chance to vote for whoever you want.  Are you as concerned about the money wasted in the Sponsorship scandal?  Who did that benefit?  That was your tax dollars at work too.  "Selective concern"?



> I see no valid reason to support the bully to the south of us just so you and your fraternity might feel good about your cause.



The underlined portion is nothing but a rude comment to a profession of people who continue to protect and provide the freedom and security you enjoy daily.  



> That my point of view doesn't meet with your approval or preconceived standard doesn't bother me in the least.



And as a Canadian, that is your right.  That you exercise your right to freedom of thought was paid for, and is paid for, in lives and blood of people that are brave enough to take a stand, not just stand on their soap box.  And I salute and support every single one of those ladies and gents.

I encourage you to go to Afghanistan and see the reality for yourself.  Make sure you stop in to see those poor little girls that were blinded with acid and explain to them why Canada/NATO should not be there.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Nov 2008)

LOL

Ya you might be right.
Kinda like how hard core bikers are all F*&% the police!  Until someone dents their bike and they want to bring them to court to get sued. Oh how they love the justice system then.



I just get a kick out of these guys with their illegal war occupying force mantra.  You mention that the UN sanctioned what's going on in afghanistan and the elected president WANTS Nato troops in his country, infact publically asks for MORE nato soldiers and it doesn't phase them they just keep blabbing. A countries elected president asking for more soldiers sure sounds like an unwanted occupying force to me  :


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Nov 2008)

Some people should go figure themselves.  Michael Den Tandt sets things out nicely in the _Sun_ papers:

Do we still recognize a 'just' war?
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2008/11/14/pf-7408326.html



> Immoral, they say. I don't get that. I doubt the eight Kandahar schoolgirls who were sprayed with battery acid this week would get it either, if anyone bothered to ask for their opinion.
> 
> We are so comfortable, it seems, with relativity. To call the Taliban evil is terribly unfashionable. Better to persuade ourselves that there are no good guys and no bad guys, anywhere.
> 
> ...



Meanwhile, St. Rick Salutin of the _Globe and Mail_ certainly avoids even a suggestion of "relativity":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081114.COSALUTIN14/TPStory/?query=salutin



> Silly me. I thought the "double standard" mentioned in a Globe and Mail editorial
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20081111.EFUNG11/TPStory/?query=fung+editorial
> after the release of kidnapped CBC reporter Mellissa Fung might refer to all the security resources available to Western mainstream journalists, versus their absence among ordinary Afghans, such as schoolgirls blinded by acid in Kandahar...
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## soccer08 (14 Nov 2008)

pinko, I read that link that you posted.  I found this part interesting: "If this is the test," he said, "the clauses should sunset because they have not proven absolutely necessary to public safety. The government, in essence, has not proven its case and on these questions where our liberties are at stake the government has to prove the case of public necessity beyond a shadow of a doubt."

Anyone who doesn't believe that these measures are necessary in the world that we live in today should be thanking whatever god they do or do not believe in that, here in Canada, we have not needed to resort to using them yet.  If, and god forbid when, the time comes to use them, I'm sure you won't mind having them in place.


----------



## Lil_T (14 Nov 2008)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> LOL
> 
> Ya you might be right.
> Kinda like how hard core bikers are all F*&% the police!  Until someone dents their bike and they want to bring them to court to get sued. Oh how they love the justice system then.
> ...



Yep, God forbid.   

There are always going to be these wingnuts that are so blinded by their Anti-American rage that they can't see the facts even when they're laid out for them like an all you can eat buffet.  "I'll have a slab of misinformation with a side of crazy please, oh and a little righteous indignation to wash it all down with - thanks"

But, my mom always used to say "You can't teach a Heinz Pickle nothing".


----------



## TCBF (14 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> Okay freedom fighter. I am aware of Steve Staples position on the issues. It seems to me that Canada would be better served by leaving the combat effort to the Americans and concentrate instead on helping the Afghans in developing an effective policing and judicial system.
> 
> The occupation of Afghanistan is largely a strategic effort related to developing petroleum pipelines and it is to this end I see this incursion by the Bush Adminstration and it's stated desire to capture the AlQueada leadership as something they should do on their own. It is interesting to note that the Americans are now considering initiating a dialogue with the so called Taliban with a view to some sort of reconciliation and common ground for peace.
> 
> ...



Pipelines: The USA and Europe were negotiating with the Taliban for pipeline access BEFORE 9/11.  Now, the pipeline is probably moot, as now technically/economically recoverable oil in the USA - the light sweet crude from the Bakkens play, for example - will soon help make the USA oil independent. 
Plus this:
 "U.S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World! 
Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006 
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains 
lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world is more 
than 2 TRILLION barrels."
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-33062

So, why fight for oil we don't need?  
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3021/


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Nov 2008)

There was a time when the left wing types would drop what they are doing and fight for their beliefs, I wonder if the Leftwing veterans of the Spanish civil war are turning in their graves at the thought of their political descendants?


----------



## tango22a (14 Nov 2008)

Gentlemen:

It appears that we have another Cog-Dis type TROLL in our midst.

tango22a


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Nov 2008)

tango22a said:
			
		

> Gentlemen:
> 
> It appears that we have another Cog-Dis type TROLL in our midst.
> 
> tango22a



He's actually an ex soldier.  Found a picture of him, no word on why he was fired though...


----------



## Celticgirl (14 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> Settle down boys.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnsecurity/



The Anti-Terrorism Act is what you consider "stripping Canadians of their civil liberties"? Seriously? Unless you are a terrorist and/or the government has good reason to believe you are, this does nothing to interfere with any of your liberties. On the contrary - it aims to protect Canadians and our way of life, give us more peace and security, and hopefully prevent another 9/11. 

It's all a conspiracy to turn Canada into a police state with no privacy or personal freedom for its citizens, though, eh?  :blotto:



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> Pipelines: The USA and Europe were negotiating with the Taliban for pipeline access BEFORE 9/11.  Now, the pipeline is probably moot, as now technically/economically recoverable oil in the USA - the light sweet crude from the Bakkens play, for example - will soon help make the USA oil independent.
> Plus this:
> "U.S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!
> Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006
> ...



And yet we will continue to have the pipeline argument presented by anti-military activists and conspiracy wingnuts for months and years to come because it helps perpetuate the illusion of the Global Bully and its puppet partners occupying a country to steal its oil.


----------



## TCBF (14 Nov 2008)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> ...It's all a conspiracy to turn Canada into a police state with no privacy or personal freedom for its citizens, though, eh? ...



- Now, how did we get to talking about the Firearms Act?

 >


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Nov 2008)

To the idjits: the only/only/only pipeline project involving Afstan is a natural gas/gas/gas/ pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India (TAPI).  When will the dimmer bulbs learn to Google?
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011448.html

And TAPI ain't no sure thing:
http://www.hindu.com/2008/10/18/stories/2008101859541000.htm

No crude, dumb dudes.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## TCBF (15 Nov 2008)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> To the idjits: the only/only/only pipeline project involving Afstan is a natural gas/gas/gas/ pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India (TAPI).  When will the dimmer bulbs learn to Google?
> http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011448.html
> 
> And TAPI ain't no sure thing:
> ...



- Actually, Mark, it's "No crude- YET -..."  Such a pipeline would provide a template that would allow future connecting pipelines from Western Siberia and the Caspian basin to ship south as well.  This would access TEN TIMES the natural gas as well as perhaps 200,000,000,000 barrels of oil (basically, another Persian Gulf).
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK24Ag01.html

- Note that by the time peace and stability break out in Afghanistan, the USA may well be self-sufficient in gas and oil (at least in a hemispheric sense), thus India and Pakistan would be the largest benefactors of this line.


----------



## Franko (15 Nov 2008)

Okay....I've read through all your argument Pinko.

We (Canada as a part of NATO) are currently rendering aid in their justice system and also in their policing services. This will take time....a long time to get it anywhere near resembling what you and I take for granted back in Canada.

As for the Bush administration, it's an outgoing one so there will be changes and the President elect has already said that the US will be bringing more to the table and finish the War on Terror. You seem to forget that 24 Canadians lost their lives on Sept 11th, 2001. Al-Qaeda has already declared war on us, are you saying that we shouldn't be taking the fight to them and the one's who allowed them to train and organize in the Afghan countryside? 

Do I feel good about the cause? I sleep rather well in Kandahar province thank you.        

I'm sure that you can agree with me that the Afghan people require aid in the form of either dollars or food stuff (grains etc), equipment, medical supplies, hydroelectric power to help with infrastructure rebuilding?

Guess what...we're doing that right now and have been for quite some time. To ensure that the stuff we bring to the table through NGOs makes it to the local population we have to enforce security, as the fledling ANA (Afghan National Army) and ANP (Afghan National Police) aren't able to take control yet, to ensure that the stuff isn't destroyed by the Taliban. 

Try to remember that the Taliban have everything to lose if we are successful in our mission, therefore they are fighting tooth and nail. I've been on the receiving end of it and have equally dished it out, as have others that are in this discussion right now. If this means routing out the bomb makers that are trying to kill us so be it. 

I'm sure you'd love to have the police back in Canada find the drug dealers and their stash before they sell it on the streets or, God forbid, get into a turf war and an innocent becomes yet another statistic.

But I digress.

So far you are only open to pushing nothing more than a conspiracy theory. Let's see...

- a UN mandated mission given to NATO to go into Afghanistan (at the invitation of it's internationally recognized government) and you are calling us invaders.

- An oil pipeline project that was pretty much abandoned well before Sept 01 due to instability in the region and will remain for the foreseeable future.

- Civil liberties under attack in Canada (one that was supported by the Liberal gov't and rammed through). It's already been said. Unless you have been planning a terrorist attack in Canada this will not apply to you.

Please tell me that you have more to stand on than this.

Regards






Now where did I put that hat? Ahhhh here it is.

*<Mod hat on>*

If you are here to only post inflammatory posts and then run, your time here will be rather short and you will be banned as a troll.

To the other members who are looking to incite an emotional response.....do not feed the troll. Engage with information.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## pinko (15 Nov 2008)

"We (Canada as a part of NATO) are currently rendering aid in their justice system and also in their policing services. This will take time....a long time to get it anywhere near resembling what you and I take for granted back in Canada."

I am certainly aware of the fact that Canada is a Nato partner and that training is ongoing with respect to policing and criminal justice. I am also aware that corruption is endemic in this country and that a staple of this economy is its drug trade.

"As for the Bush administration, it's an outgoing one so there will be changes and the President elect has already said that the US will be bringing more to the table and finish the War on Terror."

It is agreed that Obama is aiming to attempt to gain a strategic advantage in the region by beefing up the American troop complement in the region. However as I understand it he contemplates incursions into Pakistan, the sovereign state adjacent to Afghanistan. If I am not mistaken there are  two command structures at play in Afghanistan one which includes Nato memebers and the other a uniquely American one. In the absence of consent from the Pakistani government to violate its sovereign space one has to wonder how far this effort will go given the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear state. Rather than bringing an end to terror I submit that this will only accelerate the conflict and bring the world closer to another world war. 

"Do I feel good about the cause? I sleep rather well in Kandahar province thank you."

Thanks for sharing your sleeping habits with me. 


"I'm sure that you can agree with me that the Afghan people require aid in the form of either dollars or food stuff (grains etc), equipment, medical supplies, hydroelectric power to help with infrastructure rebuilding?"

Yes. As do many of the billions of poor throughout the world.

"Guess what...we're doing that right now and have been for quite some time. To ensure that the stuff we bring to the table through NGOs makes it to the local population we have to enforce security, as the fledling ANA (Afghan National Army) and ANP (Afghan National Police) aren't able to take control yet, to ensure that the stuff isn't destroyed by the Taliban. "

Please define what you mean by enforce security. I would also like you to speak to the issue of corruption within the ranks of the Afghan police and army.

"Try to remember that the Taliban have everything to lose if we are successful in our mission, therefore they are fighting tooth and nail. I've been on the receiving end of it and have equally dished it out, as have others that are in this discussion right now. If this means routing out the bomb makers that are trying to kill us so be it. "

It seems to me that you have made a conscious choice to become a soldier with the full knowledge that the nature of your work entails the dangers you describe. If you are suggesting that the Taliban is a monolithic group then I am sceptical of such a claim. Has it not occurred to you that you and your colleagues are seen as occupiers and not (as you perceive) as liberators>

"I'm sure you'd love to have the police back in Canada find the drug dealers and their stash before they sell it on the streets or, God forbid, get into a turf war and an innocent becomes yet another statistic."

I am sure you will agree Afghanistan is a narco state.

"So far you are only open to pushing nothing more than a conspiracy theory."

Well no I am not. What I am suggesting is that Afghanistan is a strategic locale for a variety of reasons including the pipelines previously referenced. Karzai himself was an oil industry insider. 

"a UN mandated mission given to NATO to go into Afghanistan (at the invitation of it's internationally recognized government) and you are calling us invaders."

Your observation notwithstanding you are part of an occupying force. You can slice and dice it whatever way you want.

"An oil pipeline project that was pretty much abandoned well before Sept 01 due to instability in the region and will remain for the foreseeable future"

Your tacit acceptance of the pipeline proposition is noted.

"
 Civil liberties under attack in Canada (one that was supported by the Liberal gov't and rammed through). 

Agreed.

"Unless you have been planning a terrorist attack in Canada this will not apply to you."

The Arar case along with several others suggest otherwise. Maybe in your universe a police state is acceptable but let me assure you in mine it isn't.

I trust you understand my position on this issue and would add that you should recognize that not all Canadians think the same on this subject. 

I am sure you will recognize that free speech includes speech that might offend. If, in your efforts at moderation, you wish to stifle such speech then so be it. 

I am sure you realize that public opinion is divided in canada.








You seem to forget that 24 Canadians lost their lives on Sept 11th, 2001. Al-Qaeda has already declared war on us, are you saying that we shouldn't be taking the fight to them and the one's who allowed them to train and organize in the Afghan countryside?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> I am certainly aware of the fact that Canada is a Nato partner and that training is ongoing with respect to policing and criminal justice. I am also aware that corruption is endemic in this country and that a staple of this economy is its drug trade.
> 
> It is agreed that Obama is aiming to attempt to gain a strategic advantage in the region by beefing up the American troop complement in the region. However as I understand it he contemplates incursions into Pakistan, the sovereign state adjacent to Afghanistan. If I am not mistaken there are  two command structures at play in Afghanistan one which includes Nato memebers and the other a uniquely American one. In the absence of consent from the Pakistani government to violate its sovereign space one has to wonder how far this effort will go given the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear state. Rather than bringing an end to terror I submit that this will only accelerate the conflict and bring the world closer to another world war.



Pinko

I don't know how old you are, but bringing "Stability" to a Region doesn't happen overnight.  Perhaps you have studied a little history.  Perhaps you have heard of World War II.  Perhaps you have heard of Western Europe.  How long did it take for "Stability" to take place in Europe after the Second World War?  Over Sixty years and many generations.  Do you think we can bring any semblance of Stability to Afghanistan in less time?  This will take many generations to clean up.  The Americans will not be able to do it themselves.  NATO as a partnership, may.

Afghanistan is a "Geographical meeting point" that many "Political Powers" are seeking to control.  If NATO leaves, then they will step in.  You may recognize the Russian, Iranian, Chinese and Pakistani interests in the country.  They are already contributing to the destabilization of the Region.

Both Pakistan and Iran are nations that are relatively unstable as is.  Pakistan is a country that has many areas that are totally out of control.  Pakistan is already a "Nuclear Nation" and Iran is attempting to become one.  Is this what we want?  A Region that is totally unstable?  

There are many serious problems in Afghanistan.  Corruption.  Foreign "agents provocateur".  Different culture.  Complex Allied ROEs, intelligence sharing, National Caveats, organizational/command structures, etc.  It is a very serious problem, and one that we can not walk away from.  There is no way that a couple of years of fighting the Taliban, or WOT, is going to stabilize the Region.  It will take a very long time to bring stability to the Region

We are now in a position of: "We are Screwed if we do; and we are screwed if we don't."


----------



## Celticgirl (15 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> Has it not occurred to you that you and your colleagues are seen as *occupiers* and not (as you perceive) as liberators>
> 
> What I am suggesting is that Afghanistan is a strategic locale for a variety of reasons including the *pipelines* previously referenced.
> 
> ...



Note the buzzwords of propaganda peppered throughout this poster's comments. It's hard to have a debate or discussion with someone who hears from the horse's mouth so to speak what the truth is, and then s/he dismisses that truth and continues to spew rhetoric and spin BS. Clearly, it suits this individual's agenda to ignore the facts. 

I still have 23 days until I swear in, so as I'm not even a member of the military yet, I'm not one of the BTDT posters. I just know that if you want to find out the truth about something, you go to the source, not to the local coffee shop to hear the latest hype. The vast majority of posters here are military members, however, and many of those have been to Afghanistan; some of them are still there now. Those are the people who know what is going on and shouldn't be dismissed as though they don't know WTF they are talking about in this or any other discussion. The fact that John Q. Public thinks s/he knows more about what's happening in Afghanistan or in any other DND mission around the world than the military personnel themselves is downright ridiculous, not to mention arrogant. That a person would _continue_ to assert in multiple posts that s/he knows more than these people just defies explanation. 

As I used to tell my students before any kind of speech, debate, or presentation: Know your audience.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Nov 2008)

Great post George.

Celtic girl nailed it.
You can pick out the buzzwords. Pipelines, occupying force, police state, illegal war. 
Me when I hear that tired old mantra I just shut down my whole wheat side and switch to my frosted side.


----------



## tango22a (15 Nov 2008)

BZ! Celtic Girl, but are you sure s(he) heard it from the horse's mouth? Sorry but I kinda think he heard it from the horse's nether regions since it is the same recycled BS as seen in various left-leaning newspapers, etc.

Cheers 
tango22a


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Nov 2008)

pinko is not here for debate whomever they are he/she/it is just present to spread its own agenda. You are wasting your time engaging them


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> "a UN mandated mission given to NATO to go into Afghanistan (at the invitation of it's internationally recognized government) and you are calling us invaders."
> 
> Your observation notwithstanding you are part of an occupying force. You can slice and dice it whatever way you want.



Pinko, your statement is incorrect.  Neither NATO nor American forces are an occupying force.


Reference: The Hague Convention - IV: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land (18 October 1907). Annex to the Convention, Section III, Article 42.



> Art. 42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.  The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.




The Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the internationally-recognized authority for the country, and NATO/coalition forces are assisting the recognized authority at the Government's request.


----------



## McG (15 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> It is interesting to note that the Americans are now considering initiating a dialogue with the so called Taliban with a view to some sort of reconciliation and common ground for peace.


Coincidentally, if you go digging into any military doctrine on the topic, you will find that we’ve been aware from the start that military role in counter insurgency is to set the security conditions that will allow for the diplomatic and rest-of-government solution to the conflict.  This is neither new nor interesting, unless one is arguing from an uninformed position.  Soldiers know that an insurgency is a political problem requiring a political solution.  Discriminately applied military power is a key enabler to allow for humanitarian relief, reconstruction and the initiate of political efforts.



			
				pinko said:
			
		

> I take the position that the N[ATO] forces ought to vacate Afghanistan at the first available opportunity and let the Americans continue their so called war on terror if that is what they choose to continue to do.





			
				pinko said:
			
		

> It seems to me that Canada would be better served by leaving the combat effort to the Americans …





			
				pinko said:
			
		

> I see no valid reason to support the bully to the south …





			
				pinko said:
			
		

> … as I understand it he [Obama] contemplates incursions into Pakistan, the sovereign state adjacent to Afghanistan. ... Rather than bringing an end to terror I submit that this will only accelerate the conflict and bring the world closer to another world war.


If the US is a “bully” and (as it seems) you do not trust their motives or methods in Afghanistan, why would you want to bestow upon them the sole authority for international efforts in stabilization & military security within Afghanistan?  A secure and peaceable Afghanistan is, for now, dependant on a large military security/stability effort.  This role is being filled by Afghan security forces and ISAF.  Shutting down this effort would be the same as turning our back on the Afghan people and their suffering.



			
				pinko said:
			
		

> It seems to me that Canada would be better served by leaving the combat effort to the Americans and concentrate instead on helping the Afghans in developing an effective policing and judicial system.


As the resources required are separate, wouldn’t you think it would bew best to support international security efforts and help in developing effective policing and judicial systems?  While we are at it, lets help in the development of effective boarder security and prison services.  Of course, being read-in, you know we are already doing this.



			
				pinko said:
			
		

> Afghanistan has been occupied …





			
				pinko said:
			
		

> The occupation of Afghanistan …


There is no occupation.  The international community (including the United Nations and many non-NATO nations) is operating in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government.  That government is not perfect, but it will continue to improve over time and as the Afghan people continue to exercise their new democratic rights.



			
				pinko said:
			
		

> Has it not occurred to you that you and your colleagues are seen as occupiers and not (as you perceive) as liberators.


Are we seen as occupiers, or is that your perception?  I have not seen any indicators to support your position.  I do know of Afghan elders who lost their composure to sadness when learning of the killing of a Canadian CIMIC officer who had been supporting the village.  I have read more than a few news articles quoting Afghans complaining of the foreign fighters, but these were in the context of Arabs and Chechens fighting for Al Qaida.



			
				pinko said:
			
		

> I don't particularly care what policies the Taliban may have nor do I buy into the hype used to justify the continued occupation of Afghanistan.


Again, it is still not an “occupation.”  Further, while preventing a return of the Taliban Regime is an element of our role it is a tangential element.  Our primary function is to establish security for humanitarian and reconstruction efforts and to set the conditions for a political solution.



			
				pinko said:
			
		

> … some seven years now and and there is very little tangible evidence that the life of the ordinary Afghan is better in a material sense.


Reconstruction , counterinsurgency and reconciliation are not over-night wonder events.  They take a lot of time.  Despite that, I do not agree there is very little evidence of improvement.  The ANP, for all of their problems, are becoming more professionalized (in Kandahar this is a large part due to mentoring by Canadian military police and RCMP).  The reliability of the electrical grid is improving.  A much greater number of young Afghans are being educated (including girls) due to the establishment of many new educational facilities and the heightened security fought for by ISAF.  New born children now have a much greater chance of living to their first birthday.  This list goes on; the evidence is out there.  You just have to honestly want to look for it.



			
				pinko said:
			
		

> History has shown that conquests by previous imperial powers have failed in subduing the peoples of this region and there is every reason to believe that will continue to be the case.


I’m sorry but this, at best, is a cognitive distortion.  You certainly could not take the number of time though history that a nation has attempted “subduing the peoples” of Afghanistan and arrive at a statistically relevant conclusion.  None of the variables are controlled, so the application of scientific method is unachievable to begin with.  However, your observation really looses all relevance when one considers that we are not making any attempt toward “subduing the peoples” of Afghanistan.



			
				pinko said:
			
		

> If you are suggesting that the Taliban is a monolithic group then I am sceptical of such a claim.


The Taliban is not a monolithic group.  This makes negotiating at a macro level difficult to impossible.  Instead, such political efforts must be aimed at the local levels or intermediate levels of leadership.



			
				pinko said:
			
		

> As a civilian whose taxpayer dollars are presumably paying for this effort I am quite concerned that our government has followed the USA lockstep in this incursion …


We’ve not followed the US.  The legitimacy of our effort is larger even than NATO.  We are in Afghanistan as part of a united international community.  The United Nations continues to authorize the ISAF mission and request member states to contribute to its efforts.  Many of the nations which were vocally opposed to operations in Iraq have been actively supportive and involved in Afghanistan from the start.



			
				pinko said:
			
		

> … at the same time stripping civil liberties here in Canada in the name of the so called war on terror..


RED HERRING ALERT!!!  Our deployment in Afghanistan and our domestic posture on terrorism are not linked.  The Anti-Terrorism Act could have been passed even had we not deployed to Afghanistan, and our deployment to Afghanistan would not have ended earlier had the Anti-Terrorism Act not been passed.  Please take your intellectually dishonest obfuscationist to a more relevant forum.  If you want to discuss the Anti-Terrorism Act, then I suggest you start here:  http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/board,70.0.html or http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/board,22.0.html 



			
				pinko said:
			
		

> I am sure you realize that public opinion is divided in [C]anada.


We could probably get into an interesting discussion on how well typical members of either side of that debate are informed of the issues.  But it is not really relevant to the current discussion.



			
				pinko said:
			
		

> I am certainly aware of the fact that Canada is a N[ATO] partner and that training is ongoing with respect to policing and criminal justice. I am also aware that corruption is endemic in this country and that a staple of this economy is its drug trade.
> 
> … I would also like you to speak to the issue of corruption within the ranks of the Afghan police and army.
> 
> ...


There are problems.  While the military community is doing its part through mentoring of Afghan security forces, these problems are largely political and require the involvement of such organizations.  As mentioned previously, development in Afghanistan is (by the nature of all such activities anywhere) a slow process.  Progress will come, but not in we leave now.



			
				pinko said:
			
		

> Please define what you mean by enforce security.


That would be enforcing the rule of law, and protecting the population from terrorism.  While some elements of the Taliban may limit their aggression to military targets, there is a significant number which deliberately target the civilian population and political figures.  Deliberate beatings, disfigurements and killing of the civilian population is an abhorrent means of achieving one’s political ends.  Unlike the Taliban, the international coalition does not employ such techniques.  The coalition does work to protect the population from this, and these attack would not stop if we were to suddenly leave.



			
				pinko said:
			
		

> "I'm sure that you can agree with me that the Afghan people require aid in the form of either dollars or food stuff (grains etc), equipment, medical supplies, hydroelectric power to help with infrastructure rebuilding?"
> 
> Yes. As do many of the billions of poor throughout the world.


Diffusing our efforts across the world will dilute those efforts to the point of ineffectiveness.  We’ve started a concentrated humanitarian effort in Afghanistan.  We are best to see it through to an self-sustainable conclusion before fully removing our efforts and re-allocating to another place where we can do good.  To do otherwise would be a disservice to Afghanistan and every other future nation from which we’d leave as soon as it lost the media’s 15 min of interest.


----------



## Franko (15 Nov 2008)

Well I'm done trying to talk with you Pinko. You are consistently restating nothing more than catch phrases and not backing them up with fact.

G2G and MCG have taken you to task and have sufficiently picked apart each and every argument that you have made. With hard evidence literally in your face I'm sure you'll say it's nothing more than a neoconservative conspiracy.

Your type have come and gone, usually stamping their feet on their soap box resulting in banning.

As for free speech, this is a privately owned site and we enjoy voicing our opinions at the leisure and whim of the owner. Don't like it? Too bad.

The fact that you are still here speaks volumes. At least you're trying to stand your ground. We're not going to stifle debate.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## pinko (15 Nov 2008)

Crewman:

I studied Western Civilization history at university many years ago. In the interim I have read a number of texts on the events in the region including Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. I would like to point out that the conflict in Afghanistan has gone on longer than WWll if that is the benchmark you using. I don't doubt there is a reordering in the region but where I think we differ is in how this will be accomplished. I take the view that this will eventually be resolved (one way or another) by Afghnaistan and its neighbours and it may include a redefinition of borders.

You seem to acknowledge the strategic nature of this area. If there is to be peace in the region there needs to be a coming together of all stakholders in the conflict including Russia, Iran, China and Pakistan. For this to happen Nato and/or the USA need to engage these parties through diplomatic channels.

You state:

"There are many serious problems in Afghanistan.  Corruption.  Foreign "agents provocateur".  Different culture.  Complex Allied ROEs, intelligence sharing, National Caveats, organizational/command structures, etc."

This is a fair characterization of the issues. Of particular interest is your reference to the national caveats.

"We are now in a position of: "We are Screwed if we do; and we are screwed if we don't.""

I take it you are making this comment as a soldier. If this is the case then I can certainly see where you are coming from.

Anyway I appreciate your response.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Nov 2008)

Brian

Don't think that the membership here are incapable of thought or research, here and on other means.  Fact is, you may be dealing with more than research here when you begin to include actual time on the ground and in the Region, as many here have.  They have done their research, been through numerous briefings on the History and Culture of the Region, and then gone there and come back.  Some are even posting from there as we carry on this discussion.  Many have read all the same books as you, and more.  (You may want to use the SEARCH function and research some of the "recommended readings" some have posted.)  They, however, have had the opportunities to actually deal with Afghans, so they don't give your thoughts as much credibility as you seem to believe.

I am sure some of your friends lurking will agree, that it is one thing to read about a person's travails, but yet another thing to actually walk in his boots.

I am sure we are all curious as to what your actual thoughts are as to a solution to the problems in this Region, especially if NATO, and the Americans, pack up their bags and leave.  Could you expound on your thoughts as to how Afghans will bring stability to their nation if we all leave?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> Crewman:
> 
> I studied Western Civilization history at university many years ago. In the interim I have read a number of texts on the events in the region including Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. I would like to point out that the conflict in Afghanistan has gone on longer than WWll if that is the benchmark you using. I don't doubt there is a reordering in the region but where I think we differ is in how this will be accomplished. I take the view that this will eventually be resolved (one way or another) by Afghanistan and its neighbours and it may include a redefinition of borders.



Now just to set you straight, I, and most others here, realize that we can go back to Alexander the Great, and we probably still haven't reached the origins of the problems in Afghanistan.  What I am pointing out about WW II is that it has taken over 60 years to bring stability to a "Western Culture" in Europe, and it can never be expected that we will be able to bring stability to this Region, with such a vastly different culture, ethics and moral background.  This is not Mcdonald's where we can go in and get a Big Mac and leave in a few minutes/go in and end the atrocities and leave the next day.  This will probably take many more generations than it took in Europe, before we will ever see any semblance of stability in the Region.


----------



## pinko (16 Nov 2008)

"Now just to set you straight, I, and most others here, realize that we can go back to Alexander the Great, and we probably still haven't reached the origins of the problems in Afghanistan.  What I am pointing out about WW II is that it has taken over 60 years to bring stability to a "Western Culture" in Europe, and it can never be expected that we will be able to bring stability to this Region, with such a vastly different culture, ethics and moral background.  This is not Mcdonald's where we can go in and get a Big Mac and leave in a few minutes/go in and end the atrocities and leave the next day.  This will probably take many more generations than it took in Europe, before we will ever see any semblance of stability in the Region. "

George:

With reference to your most recent remarks  comparing the events of World Warll and those of Afghanistan has it not occured to you that this is a radically different world we live in than the one you relate to around the time of WWll? 

I question the premise of the comparison you have drawn but for the moment let us say that it is a valid one. You have indentified a number of different factors that need to be addressed and if you don't mind I'd like to focus on the issue of culture. I am wondering if you would elaborate on what cultural distinctions are to be drawn between the "western culture" and that of those resident in Afghanistan.  I have been led to believe that Afghanistan is composed of a variety of tribes with no particular allegiance to a national government. It might be helpful if you could speak to this issue and in addition address the way the British shaped the borders in the region as a former colonial power.

Here is a website that sets out tribal composition.

http://afghanistan.saarctourism.org/ethnic-groups.html


----------



## Bograt (16 Nov 2008)

Pinko,

I am not an academic. Please let me offer this crude analogy to help communicate the current situation.

Imagine if there was a house fire in your city. When the firefighters received the call, they immediately deliberated and discovered that the home belonged to a convicted pedophile. They decided not to combat the fire.

Later, there was another fire. Prior to dispatching, the firefighters convened and discovered that the home belonged to someone with several unpaid parking tickets. They decided not to combat the fire.

Unfortunately, there was another fire. Again, the firefighters deliberated and discovered that the owner habitually drives 10 km/hr over the posted speed limit. They decide not to fight the fire.

Do you want your firefighters be selective in which fire they deem worthy to combat?

Yes this analogy is sophomoric. But it does a very good job in illustrating the nature of the Canadian Forces role. We are the hands and feet of Canadian foreign and defense policy. We go were we are told. We do what we are asked because we are professionals. 

Your position is inconsequential and intellectually embarrassing. It equal to debating the philosophy of economic pluralism in a liberal democracy to someone who just had their home foreclosed.  Your position may have its value whist shared over a 5 dollar latte, but in the real world it is immediately discarded.

What I have always had trouble understanding is how you (and I group people like you into one homogeneous group) manage to walk the ethical tight rope- being passionately outraged at the mission while being completely dismissive of the consequences of failure. I would like for you (and other like you) to accept the responsibility of the consequences of your position. I doubt you would carry that albatross around your neck- it would get in the way of your latte.

Please take your academic pontificating down the street. We are busy putting out a fire.


----------



## pinko (16 Nov 2008)

Bograt: 

As I understand the rules here I am free to post my point of view and while you may take issue with that point of view I will continue to post unless I am prevented from doing otherwise. You are free to draw whatever anologies you wish in making the case for your position. I am under no obligation to accept the veracity or legitimacy of such an analogy. 

Rather than attacking me you would be better served by addressing the issues.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> "Now just to set you straight, I, and most others here, realize that we can go back to Alexander the Great, and we probably still haven't reached the origins of the problems in Afghanistan.  What I am pointing out about WW II is that it has taken over 60 years to bring stability to a "Western Culture" in Europe, and it can never be expected that we will be able to bring stability to this Region, with such a vastly different culture, ethics and moral background.  This is not Mcdonald's where we can go in and get a Big Mac and leave in a few minutes/go in and end the atrocities and leave the next day.  This will probably take many more generations than it took in Europe, before we will ever see any semblance of stability in the Region. "
> 
> George:
> 
> ...




Pinko 

I guess you don't really catch on at all.  That or you just want to Troll.  If it is the latter, we will soon let you return to your former sites with your "superiority complex" intact, but reputation here as being unimaginative, and ignorant.  Your choice.

It seems rather clear to me that you really don't have the abilities to rationalize and actually understand the problem.  "Sound bites" from Anti-American, Anti-NATO, Anti-Conservative/Stephen Harper, or a multitude of other "Anti-" crowds don't cut it here.  You have made some statements, but insist on not defending them, rather trying to turn the tables and interrogate us.  Please expand on your statements, and not use them as "sound bites". 

We have asked you to answer some simple questions.  You insist on playing games and stepping around the questions put to you.  We don't tolerate that for very long on this site, as you may have noticed, had you done some research.  We are a relatively patient group, but not so patient as to allow a Troll to play games for more than ten to twenty posts.  

We do enjoy your contribution, if you contribute.  So, that being said, can you elaborate as to your thoughts as to how we will find STABILITY in the Region should NATO and the demonized Americans leave?  What controls would you  suggest be put in place to keep the Region from falling under the influences of a hostile Power?  You have suggested we all pull out of Afghanistan, but you have used no forethought, imagination, not thought outside of the box, to deliver a plan to us here as to what might happen should we leave Afghanistan.  Please inform us as to what you forsee as the future in the Region should we withdraw.


----------



## the 48th regulator (16 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> Bograt:
> 
> As I understand the rules here I am free to post my point of view and while you may take issue with that point of view I will continue to post unless I am prevented from doing otherwise. You are free to draw whatever anologies you wish in making the case for your position. I am under no obligation to accept the veracity or legitimacy of such an analogy.
> 
> Rather than attacking me you would be better served by addressing the issues.




Pinko,

The rules also state the following;

You will not troll the boards or feed the trolls. This is making posts that intentionally create hostile arguments, or responding to such posts in the same hostile tone.

Your actions at www.freecbc.ca may be acceptable, however _we do _ have guidlines and Moderators, I being one of them.

dileas

tess

milnet.ca staff


----------



## McG (16 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> ...  you would be better served by addressing the issues.


It might be outstanding if you would take your own advice.  At the moment, it seems to me that you are avoiding many replies & issues while cheery picking the few things you find easy to address.


----------



## pinko (16 Nov 2008)

George:

When I discuss issue with people I choose the points I am interested in pursuing. You expressed a knowledge of history and seemed interested in some dialogue. If you want to pursue the discussion fine and if not that is your call.


----------



## McG (16 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> When I discuss issue with people I choose the points I am interested in pursuing.


However, you are now ignoring issues which you initiated.  Have you lost interest in your own themes, or is your silence an acceptance of the counter points raised against you?


----------



## leroi (16 Nov 2008)

"I am wondering if you would elaborate on what cultural distinctions are to be drawn between the "western culture" and that of those resident in Afghanistan.  I have been led to believe that Afghanistan is composed of a variety of tribes with no particular allegiance to a national government. It might be helpful if you could speak to this issue and in addition address the way the British shaped the borders in the region as a former colonial power."

Pinko, although you're addressing this question to Mr. Wallace, I 'm suggesting you pare-down the unrealistic, silly request you make of him. 
Surely, you realize it would take several lengthy tomes, perhaps lifetimes, to address your unreasonable request above WRT cultural historical differences between western culture and sundry tribes of Afghanistan. :

 You'll have better luck at your local library.  

Although Mr. Wallace is an erudite, intelligent individual he is not a miracle worker.  Nor are the rest of us.


----------



## pinko (16 Nov 2008)

MCG:

Not at all.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> George:
> 
> When I discuss issue with people I choose the points I am interested in pursuing. You expressed a knowledge of history and seemed interested in some dialogue. If you want to pursue the discussion fine and if not that is your call.



I'm sorry.  I don't accept your interrogation techniques as discussion.  All I see is your avoidance of the issue.  You have been asked to expand on your views that we pull out of Afghanistan.  You don't show the capacity to do so.  You don't show the capacity to grasp the points that are put to you explaining the situation.  You are also trying to avoid discussion as to what the title of this topic is: "Afghanistan Debate: Why we should be there (or not) & how we should conduct the mission (or not)".

If you don't want to defend your position, admit it.  If not, please defend it.  As I said, your credibility is on the line, and it really doesn't look too good at present.

What are your suggestions to bringing stability to the Region, should NATO and the Americans leave?  

We already know of the culture and political/economic situation in the Region.  We know of the problems with Tribalism in the area.  We know of corruption in numerous agencies in the Region.  What we want to know is: What are your suggestions to bringing stability to the Region, should NATO and the Americans leave?


----------



## geo (16 Nov 2008)

Interesting that pinko wants us to cease and desist military action while expanding our work in humanitarian support, police training and the like....

To date he hasn't explained how the security aspect can be provided BEFORE we can do that kind of work.

You can,t do one without the other......


----------



## McG (16 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> Not at all.


If you have not lost interest in your themes and your silence is not acceptance, then I'm stuck concluding that you simply lack the arguments to continue on those issues.

In any case .... your new issue, the Durand Line, is another red herring in the should we be there or not debate.  Yes, it does bisect tribal regions, and it is not officially recognized by Afghanistan and a source of friction between that nation and Pakistan.  It is (like much in that region) a political issue that must be addressed between those two nations.  However, the existence of that problem (or the hypothetical nonexistence) does not change our need to be in Afghanistan supporting Afghans.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (16 Nov 2008)

The Durand line and Pashtun irradentalism are a part of the conflict but I do not see them as the root issue.  It is true that Afghanistan is a heterogeneous amalgam of various ethnic groups with many tribes and clans within those groups.  This certainly has an impact on the conflict but again I do not see ethinicity as the dividing line (while most Afghan Taliban are Pashtun most Pashtun are not Taliban if you know what I mean).  The civil war that followed the Afghan-Soviet war was certainly arranged along more or less ethnic lines, but I don't necessarily see that today.

I see the conflict as one between tradition and modernity.  This is what sparked the conflict that drew the Soviets into Afghanistan in the late 70s.  The urban areas are populated by people who are exposed to the modern world and essentially live in an Afghan version of a modern city.  It is a world of commerce where tribe and tradition mean less that the people you do business with.  In the 60s and 70s the children of these urban folk went to school and some went to school in the Soviet Union.  This urban elite came home with ideals that were unacceptable to the rural powerbases of Afghanistan.  They tried to change the way that land was distributed and also tried to break the power of the mullahs and clan elders.  This led to a low-scale civil war that escalated and drew in the Soviets.

Progress in Afghanistan will be slow.  The rural/urban dichotomy will still exist, but perhaps the edges can blur through some give and take.  This might mean that social progess is not as fast as some would like, but it may also be faster than some would like (compromise).  This will be up to the Afghans.

There are many other players (India/China/Iran/drug lords etc), but I think that they take advantage of instability.  Resolve the root cause for the conflict and the impact of external actors will lessen.  

My two cents.

This can only happen, however, if the political leadership have the time and space to do so.  That time and space is bought in some part by military action.


----------



## pinko (16 Nov 2008)

Leroi:

Thank-you.

That was a very well thought out post. 

Here is a copy of an article from the Hiffington Post. I would like some feedback on the article.

"NEW YORK -- During his triumphant European tour, Senator Barack Obama again urged NATO's members to send more troops to Afghanistan and called the conflict there, "the central front in the war on terror." Europe's response ranged from polite evasion to downright frosty.

It is unfortunate that Obama has adopted President George Bush's misleading terminology, "war on terror," to describe the conflict between the United States and anti-American groups in the Muslim world. Like many Americans, he and his foreign policy advisors are sorely misinformed about the reality of Afghanistan. 

One understands Obama's need to respond with martial élan to rival John McCain's chest-thumping about "I know how to win wars." Polls put McCain far ahead of Obama when it comes to being a war leader. But Obama's recent proposal to send at least 7,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and his threats to attack Pakistan's territory, and warnings about Islamabad's nuclear forces, show poor judgment and lack of knowledge. 

The United States is no longer "fighting terrorism" in Afghanistan, as Bush, Obama and McCain insist. The 2001 U.S. invasion was a legitimate operation against al-Qaeda, a group that properly fit the role of a "terrorist organization." But, contrary to the White House's wildly inflated claims that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda was a worldwide conspiracy, it never numbered more than 300 hard core members. Bin Laden and his jihadis long ago scattered into all corners of Pakistan and elsewhere. Only a handful remain in Afghanistan.

Today, 80,000 U.S. and NATO troops are waging war against the Taliban. Having accompanied the mujahidin fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980's, witnessed the birth of Taliban, and penned a book about the Afghan struggle, "War at the Top of the World," I can attest that Taliban is not a terrorist organization as the U.S. and its allies wrongly claim. 

Taliban was created in the early 1990's during the chaos and civil war that engulfed Afghanistan after the Soviet invaders were driven out. Drawn from Pashtun tribes of southern Afghanistan, who make up half that nation's population, Taliban was a religious movement that took up arms to battle the Afghan Communists, stop the wide-scale rape of Afghan women, and halt banditry and the drug trade. Both Pakistan and the U.S. secretly aided Taliban.

The ranks of Taliban were filled with young religious students -- "talibs" -- and veteran mujahidin fighters whom the U.S. had armed and hailed as "freedom fighters." By 1996, Taliban took Kabul, driving out the Northern Alliance, the old rump of the Afghan Communist Party and its Russian-backed Tajik and Uzbek tribal supporters. Taliban, most of whom were mountaineers, imposed a draconian medievalist culture that followed traditional Pashtun tribal customs and Islamic law. 

The U.S. quietly backed Taliban for possible use in Central Asia, against China in the event of war, and against Iran, a bitter foe of the Sunni Taliban. U.S. energy giants Chevron and Unocal negotiated gas and oil pipeline deals with Taliban. In 2001, Washington gave $40 million in aid to Taliban until four months before 9/11. The U.S. only turned against Taliban when, at Osama bin Laden's advice, it gave a major pipeline deal to an Argentine consortium rather than an American one.

Everything that happens in Afghanistan is based on tribal politics. Taliban came from the heart of the Pashtun tribal grouping, the world's largest tribe which also accounts for up to 20% of Pakistan's population. Tribal and clan loyalties trump all political alliances.

The Taliban leadership had nothing to do with 9/11, a plot that, according to European prosecutors, was hatched in Germany and Spain, not Afghanistan. Nor did it have anything to do with subsequent attacks ascribed to al-Qaeda. After 9/11, Secretary of State Colin Powell vowed to published a White paper demonstrating Osama bin Laden's culpability in the attacks. Curiously, the promised paper was never issued.

Osama bin Laden was a national hero of the anti-Soviet struggle, wounded six times in battle. Taliban's collective leadership, in keeping with the Pashtun code of hospitality and honor, refused U.S. demands to hand over bin Laden until Washington issued a proper extradition request with evidence of bin Laden's guilt and promised him a fair trial. Washington refused to go through legal channels and, instead, invaded Afghanistan.

Fast forward to 2008. Today, U.S. and NATO forces are not fighting "terrorists" in Afghanistan but a loose alliance of Pashtun warrior tribes whose resistance to foreign occupation is legendary. They are descendants of the same Pashtun mountain warriors who battled Alexander the Great, the Mongols, the British Empire and the Soviet Union. All these invaders were eventually defeated.

Former U.S.-backed mujahidin "freedom-fighters," like the legendary Jallal Haqqani and Gulbadin Hekmatyar, have also joined Taliban in resisting foreign occupation.

The war now being waged in Afghanistan by the U.S. and NATO closely resembles 19th century colonial "pacifications" in which a puppet ruler is installed, a native mercenary army ("sepoys") hired to fight, and western troops sent to crush rebellious tribesmen who refuse to follow the diktat of the imperial power.

Equally important, the real objective of the ongoing U.S. occupation of Afghanistan became recently evident. The U.S.-installed Karzai regime in Kabul finally singed a long-discussed pipeline deal that will bring energy south from the new gas and oil Klondike of the Caspian Basin through Afghanistan to Pakistan's coast and India. 

As the perceptive writer Kevin Phillips notes, U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan -- and Iraq -- have become "pipeline protection troops." 

Barack Obama and John McCain had better look carefully before plunging deeper into the Afghan morass. In Afghanistan, we are not fighting "terrorists" but a medieval tribal people who just want to be left alone. This is an ugly little war about oil and gas, not freedom, democracy, or woman's rights. Every village we bomb, every wedding party our air powers massacres, brings new recruits to Taliban and its allies. 

Even the secretary general of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, said last April that there could be no military solution to the war in Afghanistan, only a political one. That means negotiating with Taliban and political inclusion for the Pashtun people. But President Bush and candidates McCain and Obama are not listening."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-margolis/lets-speak-the-truth-abou_b_115591.html


----------



## McG (16 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> I would like some feedback on the article.


No!  Many of us here have gone to the effort of responding to your junk and you do us the disservice of ignoring our debate.  Now, you cut & paste another person's work and demand feedback!?  If you want to participate in discusion, you make the effort of first round analysis.  You tell us how this article is relevant to your thesis that we should withdrawl.  You tell us what you think it means for Canada.  Otherwise, go violate your hat.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> I would like some feedback on the article.


Never mind diverting the discussion, just answer the questions already put to you.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (16 Nov 2008)

What I see in the article are pipeline theories and the "blowback theory".   Others have addressed the pipeline.  Regarding blowback, Heckmatyr was indeed Mujahadeen and he received US support in the 80s.  He also shelled Kabul into a wasteland during the civil war and as a student threw acid in the face of unveiled female students.  War makes for strange bedfellows, and in defence of the US administration of the 80s I have read that they were uneasy with Heckamtyr.  In any case I fail to see the relevance to today's issue.  To me, the lesson for the West of the Afghan Soviet war is that disengagement leads to chaos.  The genie was let out of the bottle and we can't just sit back and hope that distance and isolation will protect us from consequences.  

I also find it odd to refer to the democractically elected leader of Afghanistan as a puppet. I watched the Afghans come up with a constitution, and others here watched the elections.  The soldiers of the Afghan National Army are tough soldiers who believe in their country and not 19th century sepoys.

To leave now would be to return Afghanistan to 1989.


----------



## observor 69 (16 Nov 2008)

For what it's worth my understanding of the latest thinking in NATO and Washington is ............. increase our forces until we become a big enough pain in the ass versus the Taliban advantage, their ability to hang on forever, that they will be prepared to negotiate. 
Woman's rights, strong army and police and we are out of there.


----------



## pinko (16 Nov 2008)

You sure are a demanding bunch. Must be that miltary attitude.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Nov 2008)

Yet another 'drive by posting' Pinko?

What I am reading as I follow this thread is some members replying to your post(s), which you then do the "I can't see you" reply.  It really takes away from the thread.


----------



## Celticgirl (16 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> You sure are a demanding bunch. Must be that miltary attitude.



I'm sorry, but this and your other slurs beg the question: If you think so little of the Canadian Forces and its members, what the holy heck are you doing posting on *Milnet.ca*? ???   (Mil = military!!)  :

OK, I just had to say that, and now I am done feeding the troll, I promise.  :blotto:


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (16 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> You sure are a demanding bunch. Must be that miltary attitude.



Pinko,

If you want to debate your own ideas I will happily debate with you.  It seems to me, however, that you ignore the counter-points to your points.  You also resort to insults as a smokescreen.  This tells me that you are not really interested in hearing from anybody that does not think in lock-step with you.  If you want to post propaganda then I would suggest that you post it somewhere else.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Nov 2008)

> You sure are a demanding bunch. Must be that miltary attitude.



Enough with the sophomoric generalizations.  If you think that having your ill-informed beliefs or opinions challenged here, especially by people who have lived and breathed the Afghanistan problem for years and have actually been to Afghanistan and spoken to the residents therein, is too "demanding" for you then go to Rabble.ca or some other sorry excuse for a website and quit wasting the bandwidth here.

You will find that the denizens of this site love a good debate (good lord do they ever...), but spare us the slogans and stereotypes.  You are dealing with some of the foremost experts in Afghanistan that Canada possesses here (I'm not one of them, BTW). You want to debate- bring facts and be prepared to use your 'A' game.


----------



## McG (16 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> You sure are a demanding bunch. Must be that miltary attitude.


Pinko,
Our expectations of you are not something unique to the military.  They are common expectations of intelligent people engaged in honest discussion.  You've boasted of your academic background previously.  Given that background, you would be aware that arguing in an academic environment by ignoring those arguments that do not fit your thesis and which you cannot counter, would result in your being sidelined as irrelevant.


----------



## pinko (16 Nov 2008)

Save the lecture for someone else.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Nov 2008)

Seeing how you cannot play nice and act mature, welcome to our Warning System. We have an expectation here of respect between users and co-operation. So far you have yet to follow those tenents. Keep it up and you can tell your buddies how the jack boot wearing Capitialist storm troopers were mean to you and did not let you speak your mind.

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## leroi (16 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> Leroi:
> 
> Thank-you.
> 
> ...



Sorry Pinko,  I will not comment on the Hiffington Post article because it's not germane to the topic of this thread.

I chose this particular thread because I want to help find solutions to the problems in Afghanistan not because I want to

analyze American foreign policy.

Mr. Wallace asked you an important question and I've yet to see the answer. That's disrespectful.

Tango2Bravo gave an excellent answer to your second-last question WRT "culture" in Afghanistan which you 

neglected to acknowledge. I do not deserve a thank you for merely suggesting that the scope of your second-last 

question was way too broad to be done any justice on _any_ on-line forum.

As human beings we receive respect when we extend it to others. 

By the way, aside from criticizing ISAF and American foreign policy, what have you done for the peoples of Afghanistan lately?


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Nov 2008)

pinko said:
			
		

> Save the lecture for someone else.



Don't show up in my armories. I'll give you fair warning right now. 
You PINKO, have shown NO respect. Therefore do not expect to get any in return.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Nov 2008)

He couldn't articulate the debate, so he resorted to trolling.

_*Don't feed the troll.*_

Let's not let this blip ruin a good discussion and thread.

Everyone move along. Nothing more to see here.






*Milnet.ca Fun Police*


----------



## rwgill (16 Nov 2008)

What was the question?  Oh yah.............

*Why we should be there (or not) & how we should conduct the mission (or not)*

I will not comment on how the mission should be conducted as I am not there and everything I hear from soldiers over there makes it seem like things are working and progress is being made.

*Why should we be there? *  I searched for the answer and this picture answers the question for me.............






I think that it is every parents' dream, to give their children what they themselves did not have.  People in Afghanistan want peace, they want food, they want water, they want jobs, they want an education.  They want to give their children more.  I think that we should help them.


----------



## tango22a (16 Nov 2008)

RecceGuy:

Check your PM Box!!!

tango22a


----------



## leroi (16 Nov 2008)

And here's a few more reasons why we should be there based on the Taliban's perverse 1994 interpretation of Shar'ia Law which is designed to negate half the population (females):

 Taliban restrictions and mistreatment of women include the: 

1- Complete ban on women's work outside the home, which also applies to female teachers, engineers and most professionals. Only a few female doctors and nurses are allowed to work in some hospitals in Kabul. 

2- Complete ban on women's activity outside the home unless accompanied by a mahram (close male relative such as a father, brother or husband). 

3- Ban on women dealing with male shopkeepers. 

4- Ban on women being treated by male doctors. 

5- Ban on women studying at schools, universities or any other educational institution. (Taliban have converted girls' schools into religious seminaries.) 

6- Requirement that women wear a long veil (Burqa), which covers them from head to toe. 

7- Whipping, beating and verbal abuse of women not clothed in accordance with Taliban rules, or of women unaccompanied by a mahram. 

8- Whipping of women in public for having non-covered ankles. 

9- Public stoning of women accused of having sex outside marriage. (A number of lovers are stoned to death under this rule). 

10- Ban on the use of cosmetics. (Many women with painted nails have had fingers cut off). 

11- Ban on women talking or shaking hands with non-mahram males. 

12- Ban on women laughing loudly. (No stranger should hear a woman's voice). 

13- Ban on women wearing high heel shoes, which would produce sound while walking. (A man must not hear a woman's footsteps.) 

14- Ban on women riding in a taxi without a mahram. 

15- Ban on women's presence in radio, television or public gatherings of any kind. 

16- Ban on women playing sports or entering a sport center or club. 

17- Ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles, even with their mahrams. 

18- Ban on women's wearing brightly colored clothes. In Taliban terms, these are "sexually attracting colors." 

19- Ban on women gathering for festive occasions such as the Eids, or for any recreational purpose. 

20- Ban on women washing clothes next to rivers or in a public place. 

21- Modification of all place names including the word "women." For example, "women's garden" has been renamed "spring garden". 

22- Ban on women appearing on the balconies of their apartments or houses. 

23- Compulsory painting of all windows, so women can not be seen from outside their homes. 

24- Ban on male tailors taking women's measurements or sewing women's clothes. 

25- Ban on female public baths. 

26- Ban on males and females traveling on the same bus. Public buses have now been designated "males only" (or "females only"). 

27- Ban on flared (wide) pant-legs, even under a burqa. 

28- Ban on the photographing or filming of women. 

29- Ban on women's pictures printed in newspapers and books, or hung on the walls of houses and shops. 

Apart from the above restrictions on women, the Taliban has:  

- Banned listening to music, not only for women but men as well. 

- Banned the watching of movies, television and videos, for everyone. 

- Banned celebrating the traditional new year (Nowroz) on March 21. The Taliban has proclaimed the holiday un-Islamic. 

- Disavowed Labor Day (May 1st), because it is deemed a "communist" holiday. 

- Ordered that all people with non-Islamic names change them to Islamic ones. 

- Forced haircuts upon Afghan youth. 

- Ordered that men wear Islamic clothes and a cap. 

- Ordered that men not shave or trim their beards, which should grow long enough to protrude from a fist clasped at the point of the chin. 

- Ordered that all people attend prayers in mosques five times daily. 

- Banned the keeping of pigeons and playing with the birds, describing it as un-Islamic. The violators will be imprisoned and the birds shall be killed. 

- Ordered all onlookers, while encouraging the sportsmen, to chant Allah-o-Akbar (God is great) and refrain from clapping. 

- Ban on certain games including kite flying which is "un-Islamic" according to Taliban. 

- Anyone who carries objectionable literature will be executed. 

- Anyone who converts from Islam to any other religion will be executed. 

- All boy students must wear turbans. They say "No turban, no education". 

- Non-Muslim minorities must wear a distinct badge or stitch a yellow cloth onto their dress to be differentiated from the majority Muslim population. Just like what the Nazis did with Jews. 

- Banned the use of the internet by both ordinary Afghans and foreigners. 

And so on... 

ON November 8, 1994 the UN Secretary-General presented the interim report on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan prepared by Mr. Felix Ermacora, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1994/84 of 9 March 1994, and Economic and Social Council decision 1994/268 of 25 July 1994. 

Parts of the report about women's rights sitaution says:  

The Special Rapporteur's attention has been drawn to the Ordinance on the Women's Veil, which is reported to have been issued by a nine-member professional committee of the High Court of the Islamic State of Afghanistan and which reads as follows: 

"A denier of veil is an infidel and an unveiled woman is lewd".  

Conditions of wearing veil:  

1. The veil must cover the whole body.
2. Women's clothes must not be thin.
3. Women's clothes must not be decorated and colourful.
4. Women's clothes must not be narrow and tight to prevent the seditious limbs from being noticed. 
5. Women must not perfume themselves. If a perfumed woman passes by a crowd of men, she is considered to be an adulteress.
6. Women's clothes must not resemble men's clothes.

"In addition,

1. They must not perfume themselves. 
2. They must not wear adorning clothes. 
3. They must not wear thin clothes. 
4. They must not wear narrow and tight clothes. 
5. They must cover their entire bodies. 
6. Their clothes must not resemble men's clothes. 
7. Muslim women's clothes must not resemble non-Muslim women's clothes. 
8. Their foot ornaments must not produce sound. 
9. They must not wear sound-producing garments. 
10. They must not walk in the middle of streets. 
11. They must not go out of their houses without their husband's permission. 
12. They must not talk to strange men. 
13. If it is necessary to talk, they must talk in a low voice and without laughter. 
14. They must not look at strangers. 
15. They must not mix with strangers." 




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


----------



## Flip (17 Nov 2008)

Thanks for that Leroi - looks like a handy reference.

I'm a little surprized by how long this has gone on, As trolls go this one doesn't even rate top 20.

The rhetoric is outdated and has been dealt with before.
Perhaps we haven't had enough trolls lately.... ;D

If the troll were able to complete his thoughts or explain his point of view with more than the usual noise  it might be intresting.  Really, I would like to learn something new.  Sadly, this guy has nothing new.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Nov 2008)

I thought this argument was hopeless. I'm glad to see that I'm wrong.
The posts made by Recceguy, George, Tango2Bravo, MCG,  and friends really reinforced the fact that what we're doing here is needed. I've also picked up a lot of ammunition in terms of combating the buzzword bullshit thrown out by the Anti-Canadians-in-Afghanistan people.  
I chalked it up as useless, trying to argue our side with a Troll. I still think it's a lost cause, but in doing so I have an even better understanding of our situation here. Thank you guys.

As for Pinko only responding to what he feels like- that's common.

Trolls answer what they feel they can answer while arguing their point but are afraid to venture onto topics that could see them proven wrong. He's right there IS a difference with "military types". We'll cover every point even if it may put us at a disadvantage or be turned around on us. In the military we try to avoid doing things half-assed or leaving stuff unfinished- I see the same thing in the threads.

Pinko sounded very intelligent, I was surprised. I admit even impressed at some stages even though I didn't agree with what he was saying. 
But true to form as soon as he couldn't effectively engage, he pulled-pole.  Enter the one line jabs.
That's common to these types.
Ask them 8 things and they will answer 2. Once their argument starts to falter, they try and push your buttons.

If he's not respecting the forum or it's posters by answering the questions put to him after launching all his questions, well to me that's trolling pure and simple and he should be shown the door.
You can't post expecting every one of your questions to be answered and not affording the same respect to everyone else.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Nov 2008)

Pinko,.....I removed your post, not for its content. but because you haven't earned the right to keep 'posting and running' various tangents until you have responded to rebuttals made to you.

If you wish to continue debating, than debate, if not then I guess you have already conceded intellectual defeat and must resort to internet guerrilla tactics. Sorry lad, but that doesn't cut it here.

Bruce
army.ca staff


----------



## leroi (18 Nov 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> Thanks for that Leroi - looks like a handy reference.
> 
> I'm a little surprized by how long this has gone on, As trolls go this one doesn't even rate top 20.
> 
> ...



I think the Admin. here likes to give everyone a fair chance. It's one of the reasons I stuck around--a fairer playing field than many forums and higher level of discourse.

(It's unbelievable how predictable the trolls are, though. I think they might be using a "Troll Cookie Cutter Template" ;D--same keywords used over and over again as Celticgirl astutely observed.)

 Back on topic: The CF has done an excellent job in Afghanistan and I sincerely hope they get to finish it to the high standard that has characterized their many historic achievements: with pride, honour and a sense that they've made the world a better place.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (18 Nov 2008)

Pinko;

I commend you, as a civilian, attempting to bring your ideas here (as a thread with only a one sided discussion is not a debate, only an echo chamber of the same opinions). However you are not doing yourself, or your movement any justice by the way you have treated this discussion. You brought up some valid points, its a shame you had to go down the easier road of, as someone above me quaintly put it, "drive by posting". I am interested in your points, and I hope you can bring them in with better decorum and tact in the future so that we could have an honest and frank discussion.

As for your positions, I myself have not come to any conclusion on the initial "morality" of the operations in Afghanistan. Whether or not we should have been there or not isn't as important as what we need to do now. With that in mind, any way you slice it I believe that the current plan for 2011 is a fair one. It has us leaving Afghanistan, thus its viable to the anti-war movement. Also, however I believe no one can question our services and sacrifices for Canada with our mission in Afghanistan and thus we have certainly held up a very valiant effort at doing our job, that is accomplishing the mission in service of NATO and Canada. Thus, I think no one can argue against Canada bowing out after stretching and prying at our armed forces, and doing a job well done. The Canadian public have spoken, and we have served our time in Afghanistan, and it is time we moved on. 

I am however irked by your attitudes towards the military. While there certainly is some reprehensible members of our organization, on the whole its not fair to blame individual responsibility for service members. The fireman analogy given above I believe is an apt one. I find myself bemused by some of the attitudes of my fellow "left-wing" community in regards to members of the Canadian Forces. On the one hand, the left has traditionally been against the "individual responsibility" espoused by many on the right, and the "bootstraps" and "rugged individualism". Our spectrum routinely bemoans the attitudes of some against the supposed individual responsibility of those in poverty, as we argue that there are much greater social currents leading them to their positions, rather then their own lack of volition. But then, we completely ignore that and somehow dive head first into attacking the individuals of the Canadian Forces as blood thirsty, or violent war-seekers, and then we blame them for their own personal and "individual responsibility" in joining the Canadian Forces. Its as if that the same social currents we see pushing people towards poverty don't exist for those joining the military, which I find preposterous. As many of those in poverty conditions are a product of our society, as are the members of our military. I make myself clear however I am not comparing the social problem of poverty and the recruitment of people in the military as of the same problem, not at all (afterall I am in the military...). What I am saying is that, social pressures and environment are very much a catalyst for joining the military, just as social pressures and environment are catalysts for many other issues. It seems that those on my side of the spectrum fail to recognize that and are quick to denounce service members. A shame indeed.

-C/D


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Nov 2008)

C-D, somehow, I doubt you'll get a honest and frank discussion with Pinko.  His M.O. here is pretty much the same, he posts an article and then insults the posters who can actually debate about it.


----------



## Celticgirl (18 Nov 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> C-D, somehow, I doubt you'll get a honest and frank discussion with Pinko.  His M.O. here is pretty much the same, he posts an article and then insults the posters who can actually debate about it.



I just did a bit of reading on the Canadian Military in Afghanistan thread of that forum. You're right, Moe. I see only childish posturing and insults. Actual debate skills on the part of the aforementioned poster (and a few others there) are _zero_.  :


----------



## PAT-Platoon (18 Nov 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> C-D, somehow, I doubt you'll get a honest and frank discussion with Pinko.  His M.O. here is pretty much the same, he posts an article and then insults the posters who can actually debate about it.



That's a shame, I always look forward to good discussions from people with differing opinions.

-C/D


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Nov 2008)

Debate and the airing of ideas is a good thing and a fundamental part of our democracy.

Having made the commitment to Afghanistan and its people, the time for debate, IMO is done. 
The acid attack, suicide bombing and the murder of innocent people who want nothing more than to live their lives in peace is reason enough to be there. 
Not to mention we are there at the invitation of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan.


----------



## the 48th regulator (19 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> That's a shame, I always look forward to good discussions from people with differing opinions.
> 
> -C/D



http://www.freecbc.ca/cgi-bin/backtalk/backtalk.cgi/abalone/begin

dileas

tess


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Nov 2008)

The latest verbal parsing, courtesy this time of CanWest/National Post:


> ....In an interview with the Canwest News Service, MacKay hinted that Canadian troops might still have a role to play in Afghanistan after 2011 - the deadline set by Parliament for the end of the current combat mission - and if they do not, the Forces will likely be called to duty elsewhere.  "There are many ways in which we can make contributions beyond 2011. *What we've said is the current combat mission, the current configuration, will end in 2011.* That's a firm date, confirmed by Parliament and respectful of Parliament," MacKay said.....



Here's exactly what was said in 19 Nov 08's Speech from the Throne, which constitutes "the newly-elected Government’s general program for the parliamentary session that will follow":


> ....Our Government is transforming Canada’s engagement in Afghanistan to focus on reconstruction and development, and to *prepare for the end of our military mission there in 2011*....



And from the Conservative Party's platform (.pdf) released during the election:


> ....*Canada's military mission in Afghanistan will cease by the end of 2011*....



So, can all three of these statements be true?  It'll be interesting to watch - I'm betting a loonie that CAN troops will still be in AFG after 2011, either:
- from a msn reconfiguration, or 
- a change of heart based on changing circumstances between now and 2011.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Nov 2008)

CF in support of a Canadian Development Mission would not be a military mission...


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Nov 2008)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> CF in support of a Canadian Development Mission would not be a military mission...


...especially if the developers outnumbered the troops (although I doubt how possible THAT would be until the Taliban/bad guys have learned their lessons) - not to mention a pretty different (I would suspect) configuration for the troops.

_- edited to finish thought - _


----------



## McG (24 Nov 2008)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> CF in support of a Canadian Development Mission would not be a military mission...


That is why we are there now.


----------



## Goober (24 Nov 2008)

We'll be there in 2011, we'll be there in 2012, we'll be there in 2015...


----------



## leroi (25 Nov 2008)

An interesting perspective from Russia on the mission in Afghanistan:

Retired General Looks Back on Russia's Afghan War

Retired Lt. Gen. Ruslan Aushev says the key to U.S. success would be to help set up a sovereign government. Moscow and Washington have made the same mistakes in their conflicts there, says Ruslan Aushev. He offers advice for the U.S. as it enters the eighth year of war. Retired Lt. Gen. Ruslan Aushev served for five years in Afghanistan during the Soviet Union's nearly decade-long battle with mujahedin there. He was wounded and named a Hero of the Soviet Union. Aushev, 54, who later served as president of the Caucasus republic of Ingushetia, is now chief of the Committee of Afghan Veterans...


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-aushev23-2008nov23,0,4727945.story


----------



## geo (26 Nov 2008)

> Retired Lt. Gen. Ruslan Aushev says the key to U.S. success would be to help set up a sovereign government.



WTF ???  Isn't that what we are doing right now ?

The Government has been formed, elections have been held - new ones to happen in 2009... and we are helping that sovereign government build it's self defense capacity ( ANA & ANP)..... check, check & check.

Obviously Gen Aushev hasn't been paying attention


----------



## leroi (27 Nov 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> WTF ???  Isn't that what we are doing right now ?
> 
> The Government has been formed, elections have been held - new ones to happen in 2009... and we are helping that sovereign government build it's self defense capacity ( ANA & ANP)..... check, check & check.
> 
> Obviously Gen Aushev hasn't been paying attention



I thought it was a strange response too. I wonder if that's his way to avoid conceding publicly that we're having more success than Russia??


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Nov 2008)

Thoughts for after 2011. How about keeping the PRT and a fair number of troops to mentor the ANA. But focus the mission on the Air Force, using the CH-47Ds and also new build CH-47Fs as and when we ever get them, Griffons, Heron UAVs, and C-17s and C-130s (Js as available)  to support our force and allies. Troops at KAF to provide force protection and support the mentors in the field when necessary, with required armour, and some JTF2 too. Probably a maximum of around 1,000 from the Army (about what the Aussies now have). No real idea of Air Force numbers but should be I imagine in the mid-hundreds actually in country (then there's Camp Mirage).

That would be a significant and useful contribution that the CF should be able to implement, and that I think would be welcomed by NATO and President Obama. I don't see why, in principle, the Canadian public could not be convinced to go along.

Moving from Kandahar would be very expensive and forgo all the local knowledge and familiarity acquired.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo (27 Nov 2008)

Was present for a talk by the LFC.  His marching orders say... 2011.  He's asked for details on what we are going to do thereafter - for April 09 timeframe.... expecting answers (anything) sometime around Oct/Nov timeframe.


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Nov 2008)

A useful post by Raphael Alexander:

Afghanistan In Perspective
http://unambig.blogspot.com/2008/11/afghanistan-in-perspective.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Dec 2008)

And sneaking in under the radar in the midst of all the coalition government chaff....

*Second Quarterly Report on Afghanistan Highlights Canada's Progress Towards Its Benchmarks Through 2011*
Government of Canada news release, 26 Nov 08
News release - Report (.pdf) - Report (html version)

Today, the Honourable Stockwell Day, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Chair of Canada's Cabinet Committee on Afghanistan, released the Government’s second quarterly report on progress made toward achieving Canada's benchmarks through 2011 in Afghanistan.

“It is clear that we face very serious dangers and challenges from a determined enemy in Afghanistan. Despite the fact that the security situation deteriorated during the summer ‘fighting season,’ progress continues to be made there. As highlighted in this report, we are on track to achieve our long-term policy objectives in Afghanistan and build a strong foundation that will make Afghanistan better governed, more secure and more prosperous for its people,” said Minister Day.

Canada’s efforts are guided by six priorities (enable Afghan National Security Forces; strengthen institutional capacity to deliver core services and promote economic growth; provide humanitarian assistance for extremely vulnerable people; enhance border security by facilitating dialogue between Afghan and Pakistani authorities; help advance Afghanistan’s capacity for democratic governance; and, facilitate Afghan-led political reconciliation). Canada is also working on three signature projects: the Dahla Dam project; the construction, repair or expansion of 50 schools in key districts; and the eradication of polio in Afghanistan.

Each of these priorities and signature projects has associated benchmarks to measure how our efforts are progressing. As highlighted in the report, notable achievements to date include:

    * Each of the five Afghan army battalions (kandaks) in Kandahar now has an effective strength of over 70%. They are gaining in both confidence and capability.
    * Through an aggressive demining campaign, 180 square kilometres of land was cleared of mines and made available for community use, including for agriculture. The number of mine victims declined by 19 percent from last year.
    * The goal of the Dahla Dam is to create 10,000 seasonal jobs and provide the basis for expanded agricultural activity in the region. With a more secure and stable water supply, farmers can begin to grow crops that require more water, such as fruit crops. This project will focus on legitimate agriculture development and will include activities such as supporting cropping alternatives, supporting better on-farm water management, promoting increased access to markets, and providing agriculture credit to enable farmers to get their crops in and growing.
    * Preliminary work for the Dahla Dam has been initiated and it is expected that a Canadian contractor will be announced shortly to take the work forward.
    * Over 60 infrastructure projects were completed in key districts between June and September. In addition to providing employment, these projects allow for the increased movement of people and goods.
    * Three new schools have been completed. One of these completions falls within the period of the report released today. There are 14 more schools under construction as part of the effort to build, repair or expand 50 schools in key districts of Kandahar.
    * Education efforts have resulted in 6 million children attending school in Afghanistan today (one-third of them girls), compared to just 700,000 (all of them boys) in schools in 2001.
    * Close to 11,000 Afghans (9,000 women) continued to receive literacy training this past quarter through Canadian support. This number continues to rise.
    * A total of 7 million children have now received vaccinations through our polio eradication program. From January to September 2008, 20 new cases have been reported in the southern region, demonstrating a compelling need for the campaign. Canada is prepared to meet this challenge.

“Despite security challenges in the last few months, Afghans and Canadians are starting to see a difference. Schools are being built, more Afghans are learning to read and write, more children are being vaccinated against polio in Kandahar and throughout Afghanistan, and we are we are laying the necessary groundwork for the repair of the Dahla Dam,” said the Honourable Beverly J. Oda, Minister of International Cooperation and Vice-Chair of the Cabinet Committee on Afghanistan.

The Canadian government committed to having established benchmarks in September 2008. These quarterly reports provide the Government of Canada with a means of reporting frankly and honestly to Canadians on the progress being made.

The second quarterly report on Canada’s Engagement in Afghanistan can be found at http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/documents/r11_08/index.aspx?

- 30 -


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Dec 2008)

From Terry Glavin; read the whole article:
http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=206



> ...
> It was no great surprise, then, that the postures of the 'anti-war' movement based in the world's rich countries leave the Afghan activists I interviewed utterly mystified. Without exception, the proposition that the 39-nation International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is merely a tool of western imperialism was greeted with derision. As for the notion that the way forward in Afghanistan involves the withdrawal of foreign troops and some kind of brokered pact with the Taliban, the response was invariably wide-eyed incredulity...
> 
> Here in the 'west,' none of us on the liberal left would fail to recognise these brave women and men as our comrades and allies, and if we were to flatter ourselves we might even imagine them to be our Afghan counterparts. On the question of troop withdrawal, their views were varied and nuanced, but their answer was ultimately the same: Stay. And yet this is not the position that the left has been fighting for, in the main, in Europe or North America. It changes by degree from country to country, of course, and the left's positions are varied and nuanced. But in Canada, the left's answer is pretty much unequivocal: Leave [with some. er, nuance in the pursuit of power--see Update].
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Fide et Fortitudine (4 Dec 2008)

Very well said, that is a good quotation, Mark.

The sad part is that we still see so many people not understanding what is going on in Afghanistan and what the goal is, people say its oil and such... just sad.


----------



## PMedMoe (6 Dec 2008)

Here's a good editorial from the Toronto Sun.
Article Link

Yesterday Canada lost its 100th soldier in Afghanistan since our military mission there began in February, 2002, a few months after the horrors of 9/11.

With that death, as well as the loss of a Canadian diplomat, it’s an appropriate time to ask: “Why are we fighting in Afghanistan?”

The first and most important thing to remember is that our soldiers are there because two successive Canadian governments, one Liberal, the other Conservative, put them there.

They are there in response to a request from the government of Afghanistan and to fulfill Canada’s international obligations to the United Nations and NATO.

They are there because we have seen what happens when failed states become breeding grounds for terrorism and religious fanaticism, as Afghanistan did under the Taliban.

That tyrannical, theocratic government, aided, abetted and provided safe haven to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida as they plotted and carried out 9/11, in which 24 Canadians died in addition to thousands of other innocent civilians in an unprecedented attack on North American soil.

Our soldiers fight in Afghanistan today to protect us from a similar act of terrorism at home tomorrow.

They fight to prevent the return of a dictatorship in Afghanistan antithetical to everything Canadians stand for — democracy, the rule of law, the equality of women and the protection of children.

When our soldiers are asked why they are in Afghanistan, to a man — and woman — they talk passionately about their desire to help the people of Afghanistan realize a better life.

Not to turn Afghanistan into a carbon copy of Canada, not to impose their will on its people, but to give them a fighting chance to choose their own destiny, not have it forced on them by religious zealots and terrorists.

The mission has been long, hard and the costs terrible with no guarantee of success.

But our soldiers are there because they know, as we should, that the alternative, to abandon Afghanistan now, would be so much worse.


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Dec 2008)

A post at _The Torch_:

Afstan: Who cares? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/12/afstan-who-cares.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tango22a (6 Dec 2008)

From the comments to the editorial the paper only seems to show comments that are against Canadian participation in Afghanistan. Kinda one-sided IMHO.


tango22a


----------



## PMedMoe (8 Dec 2008)

From Mike Blanchfield in The Ottawa Citizen
Article Link

A difficult question: Is it worth it?

If Canada pulls out, what message does that send? If we stay in, are we fighting for the right reasons? Mike Blanchfield talked with several military and political experts in a search for answers.

The message to Canadians remains the same with each tragedy -- the slow hemorrhage of this country's blood and treasure does not outweigh the ultimate gains.

Each time, the prime minister reminds Canadians that the "sacrifice will not be forgotten."

Now with the deaths of 100 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan -- and two aid workers and a senior diplomat -- many are wondering: Is the sacrifice worth it? Politically incorrect and tinged with pain, this is not easily answered and only begs deeper, more provocative questions.

More on link

I particularly like the last two paragraphs:



> "It's the fact that the Canadian Forces have found their raison d'être again. They are a military force; they are not a peacekeeping force," says Mr. Granatstein.
> 
> "That is, to my mind, absolutely critical for the survival of the Canadian Forces, and I would say, the long-term survival of the country. Peacekeeping has failed, except in the minds of the Canadian people. And it's important it no longer dominates in the mind of the Canadian soldier."


----------



## zipperhead_cop (8 Dec 2008)

It would be nice if the government we were backing resembled something more than a sociopathic Grade 2 class that is trying to steal all of the cookies from the kindergarten classes.  Trying to tell average Afghans that we are "working on behalf of the legitimate government of Afghanistan" rings pretty hollow.  They know what is going on and we end up looking like we are just protecting thugs and criminals.  They also know we are trying to help them but they look at us like we are half wits since we do the same things over and over. 
However, the Taliban are even worse and IMO are at this point just a different kind of organized crime.  Sadly, in our big race to throw money at problems to make them go away we are forgetting that when people don't have to work for something they tend not to value it.  If this adventure is going to work somebody needs to start paying some serious attention to governance.   (I caveat my comments to the Kandahar Province)
But it wont be Canada since we;re in GTFO mode.


----------



## helpup (9 Dec 2008)

Did anyone catch the CBC national report last night that did a piece on the cost of it.  Using  utilizing a few of the grieving families who lost children over there as a voice against the mission?  I am not trying to suggest that the families views are wrong or they don't have a right to feel that way.  I however take issue with the way the CBC presented it.  I don't have a hate on for the CBC but for a "National" news program to be so blatant in its content and allow factual errors and opinions to be expressed in such a way that suggests that all the parents hold these views and it is only the military who holds a counter view is very frustrating.  I am not supprised by the type of reporting just needing to vent


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Dec 2008)

helpup said:
			
		

> Did anyone catch the CBC national report last night that did a piece on the cost of it.  Using  utilizing a few of the grieving families who lost children over there as a voice against the mission?  I am not trying to suggest that the families views are wrong or they don't have a right to feel that way.  I however take issue with the way the CBC presented it.  I don't have a hate on for the CBC but for a "National" news program to be so blatant in its content and allow factual errors and opinions to be expressed in such a way that suggests that all the parents hold these views and it is only the military who holds a counter view is very frustrating.  I am not supprised by the type of reporting just needing to vent



CBC is not the only guilty party. Marc Leger's mother was on and Kevin Newman fromGlobal specifically asked her opinion. 

I told reporters there are no questions about the mission, or I'd shut them down.


----------



## helpup (9 Dec 2008)

I understand Marc's mothers grief, and again she has more then earned her right for her view, but it says something about the perception of Canadians who thought that we were just " peacekeepers".  They wrapped themselves in that word and forgot that we are soldiers first. Peacekeeping was just a mission we could do.  And we lost troops in them as well.  I cant recall her name but the one who wrote the book and started to express concerns about the military taking over any families lives to do it only for the protection of the army's views and to control the family... Ouch that one hurt as well. The wife and I looked at each other and went "WHAT!!"

OS my biggest issue outside of yes the families have earned the right to any view they have is......... Where is the balance. I don't even expect it to be proportional, but at least make it even handed and allow the viewers to make up their own mind.


----------



## Jed (9 Dec 2008)

I saw the program and I thought that LGen Jeffries Ret'd did a pretty good job fielding some very sensitive issues and that the CBC reported his comments fairly.


----------



## helpup (9 Dec 2008)

Jed said:
			
		

> I saw the program and I thought that LGen Jeffries Ret'd did a pretty good job fielding some very sensitive issues and that the CBC reported his comments fairly.


Your right he did but the whole layout of the show was ex Gen who of course would support it against those who have really lost someone over there.  Out of 100 immediate families, they showed 3 who's views are well known, and earned.  no attempt at getting the rest of the families on there or mentioning that they tried but were turned down.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Dec 2008)

helpup said:
			
		

> Your right he did but the whole layout of the show was ex Gen who of course would support it against those who have really lost someone over there.  Out of 100 immediate families, they showed 3 who's views are well known, and earned.  no attempt at getting the rest of the families on there or mentioning that they tried but were turned down.


Well no one asked me, but then again I won't offer an opinion to the media, as per the guidelines.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Dec 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is Christie Blatchford’s report on just one of the overpasses – but a special one:

--------------------​http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081209.wblatchford09/BNStory/National/home

 The beauty and the light in the darkness of loss
*On a cold day, hundreds squeeze onto a Highway of Heroes overpass as casualties No. 98, 99 and 100 come home*

CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
December 9, 2008 at 4:45 AM EST

TORONTO — Before the dozen police cars cleared the Don Valley Parkway and stilled a busy expressway into utter silence, before the snake of white lights signalled the arrival of the long funeral cortège, before we threw our rose petals onto the three black cars below, Helen Zoubaniotis, drinking deeply of it all, sighed and said, "What a wonderful world we have. There is beauty everywhere."

We were on the sidewalk of the Wynford Drive overpass, the side that looks north onto the southbound lanes of the parkway. Around us were the medium-sized office buildings of this part of Don Mills, signs advertising McDonald's and Home Depot, and bigger residential towers under construction.

If it was hardly a traditional picture of loveliness, Ms. Zoubaniotis was nonetheless right. There is beauty everywhere, and so there was even here, in the early evening dark of an early winter's night.

Ms. Zoubaniotis was there with her two kids. The teenage daughter held a Greek flag. They are friends of the family of Private Demetrios Diplaros, one of three Canadian soldiers who were casualties No. 98, 99 and 100 and who came home yesterday.

Pte. Diplaros, 25, Corporal Mark Robert McLaren, just 23, and Warrant Officer Robert John Wilson, 27, were killed last Friday when their armoured vehicle rolled over an enormous improvised explosive device while travelling along a lethal stretch of highway that runs west from Kandahar city.

As Ms. Zoubaniotis said, "We were scared for him, but we were proud of him too. This is something he wanted to do. To die for your country, I think, is a great honour."

Pte. Diplaros had roots in the Peloponnese region, which is in the south of Greece and was home in ancient times to Sparta, but he was a fighting son of Canada and a Toronto boy.

The Wynford overpass, centrally located, was where Pte. Diplaros's namesake uncle Demetrios and aunt Thena Moumos, clutching a framed picture of the young man in uniform to her heart, their son Nick and other relatives came. Nick's brother Gus was travelling with the rest of the sprawling family in the funeral procession, and Nick would call him to find out where along the Highway of Heroes the cortège was. It was here, too, that Linda Hamman, another relative, arrived with small, brown-paper bags filled with the rose petals.

But the family wasn't alone. The crowd began gathering about two hours before the cortège came into sight and was at its biggest about 175 strong, which is a lot of people squeezed onto a narrow sidewalk.

Making its 10th appearance at this overpass was a huge Canadian flag that Marilyn Lawson, a member of Branch 10 of the Royal Canadian Legion, bought in 2002. Ms. Lawson had it in place early, attached to the hand rail so that it was right over the lane where she knew the cortège would travel. Harvey Horlock, with his big Support the Troops flag, was also in position early; Mr. Horlock served for almost 15 years with the 2nd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, brother unit to the RCR's 1st Battalion, the regiment of the dead soldiers.

Shelley Goodman was one of the first to arrive. A retired Toronto elementary school teacher, she had never before come to the overpass or any other. But she felt compelled this time, not because of the 100th milestone, but because two of her fellow retired teachers have young men in Afghanistan serving on this rotation - one a son, the other a son-in-law. "I'm just astounded at the immensity of it," Ms. Goodman said, then, echoing Ms. Zoubaniotis's remark, "and the gorgeousness."

Long before the cortège was even close, we began to notice that below us, as motorists caught a glimpse of all of us, standing with the Greek and Canadian flags flying and stamping our feet in the cold, they would flash their lights and honk their horns, as if to say they were with us in spirit.

Behind me, to the steady beep-beep-beep of the horns below and over the hum of the big Toronto Emergency Medical Services bus that was now parked on the road, I could hear Ms. Zoubaniotis talking with other family friends in Greek; naturally, being a good Canadian, she apologized for this. Nick Moumos, who is 33, talked about his little cousin with affection, and he and Ms. Zoubaniotis tried to figure out whether it was Centennial College where Pte. Diplaros and his brother Gus had studied auto mechanics together for a while.

Mr. Horlock kept me up to speed about the number of Branch 10 members who were present (about 10, he figured); Ms. Lawson remembered how she took the big flag to Canadian Forces Base Trenton last summer for a big support-the-troops rally and reminisced about growing up in nearby Flemington Park. Mr. and Mrs. Moumos were brought over to the spot above the southbound lanes; by now, she had stopped crying.

It was an oddly congenial, weirdly Canadian crowd.

A little after 5 p.m., Nick phoned Gus (again) and learned the procession was in the Whitby area, just east of Toronto. By 5:25, it was at Kennedy Road; 10 minutes later, we began to see the police cars with their flashing lights tearing down the parkway.

I noticed for the first time that there now was no regular southbound traffic, and that the expressway was completely empty. There were more police cars, and then at about 5:40, Ms. Goodman spotted the first of the lights just south of York Mills Road.

The cortège had left the Highway of Heroes and was coming to us.

Someone shouted, "Get your flowers ready!", and then the procession - three funeral cars and various long black limousines - was below us.

In seconds it was gone. On the road below, rose petals covered the ground. Mrs. Moumos thanked us for coming.

Driving home, I heard CFRB radio show host Bill Carroll, who was stationed at the coroner's office in downtown Toronto, where all soldiers' bodies are taken for autopsy, saying, wonderment in his voice, that some of the dead soldiers' family members had rolled down the windows of the hearses to acknowledge the people who were waiting there.

I was reminded of what Michael Herr wrote in his wonderful book about the Vietnam War, Dispatches, how whenever a reporter left the troops (to safety of course, leaving the soldiers behind in some godforsaken, dangerous place), the guys would find a way to thank him for having come, wish him luck. "And what could you say to that?" Mr. Herr asked. What indeed.
--------------------​
I have nothing to add, except to say that those famous _ordinary Canadians_ ‘get it’ even when the _elites_, and the ‘chattering classes’ and the _commentariat_ cannot understand.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Dec 2008)

As I stated in another post, we are all CANADIANS. We are not Eastern Canadians, Western Canadians, Atlantic Canadians or West Coast Canadians. We are not French or English Canadians, or any kind of hyphenated Canadian. We are CANADIANS.


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Dec 2008)

A most depressing, and revealing, aspect of our Afghan involvement is the way it has become framed. It is presented, by both politicians and the major media, in essentially two ways:

1) What's the political spin? What party points are being won or lost?

2) Is the military mission a failure--or succeeding--at this moment? When should Canada bug out?

How puerile can a country get? These are the questions that should be considered:

1) What are Canada's national interests that justify a major effort, military and development, in Afstan?

2) Is there a realistic chance that an ongoing and increased international commitment, military and otherwise, will eventually result in a situation favourable to our national interests?

3) If the answer to 2) is yes, what could be the extent of Canada's ongoing efforts, military and otherwise, taking into account this country's capabilities and resources?

4) Is Canadian public opinion open to a continuing military mission in Afstan after 2011, perhaps a changed one?

(See the end of this post:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/11/eight-griffons-to-afstan.html )

5) What will be the consequences, if we effectively end our military mission in 2011, on: a) Afghanistan; b) the international military effort; c) Canada's foreign relations; and, d) Canadians' views, and those of our politicians especially, about our future military role abroad?

Responses to those five points invited.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Dec 2008)

Here are my answers.

1. Minimal, beyond:

a. supporting our friends and allies, and

b. protecting ourselves by trying to prevent Afghanistan from, once again, being used as a base from which terrorists can launch attacks on our friends and us.

2. Yes, but only slightly better than 50/50 in the near to mid term.

3. About 5% of the total allied effort is appropriate. That means our 2,500+ person commitment is about right given that NATO has 50,000+ troops in Afghanistan.

4. Yes, probably.

5. Consequences:

a. minimal;

b. somewhat damaging;

c. negative, at least in the near to mid term, unless/until we pick up a heavy load in an even more difficult mission – which will likely be the case; and

d. minimal – both have very, very short attention spans and their focus is 99.975% domestic.



Edit:spelling/typo


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Dec 2008)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> 4) Is Canadian public opinion open to a continuing military mission in Afstan after 2011, perhaps a changed one?
> 
> (See the end of this post:
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/11/eight-griffons-to-afstan.html )



Given the range of wording to this point, combined with the latest set of tea leaves to divine...


> ....Canada's two leading cabinet ministers on Afghanistan, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and Defence Minister Peter MacKay, held firm against the calls to extend the mission.
> 
> Spokespeople for both ministers responded with an identical statement that said: "Secretary Gates has always been gracious about Canada's role in the UN-mandated mission. The minister and the government have been very clear that *Parliament has decided that our mission there ends in 2011*."
> 
> Asked whether he saw Gates's comments as a sign the new U.S. administration of Barack Obama will push Canada to remain in Kandahar beyond 2011, MacKay's spokesman Dan Dugas said: *"I've had no indication they will."*....



...not to mention the hurley-burley of the Coalition Polka now under way, to me, it'll be interesting to see what the "new, improved" Canadian presence will look like.


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Dec 2008)

E.R. Campbell: Thanks for answers I'd generally agree with .  But:



> c. negative, at least in the near to mid term, unless/until we puck up a heavy load in an even more difficult mission – which will likely be the case...



When bitten?  Especially politically?



> d. minimal – both have very, very short attention spans and their focus is 99.975% domestic.



I think the domestic focus will outweigh any interest in, or support for, foreign adventures with casualties that might entail any political risk.

As an aside, if the USMC go into Afstan large, some new lines:

"From the halls of Montezuma
To the sands of Kandahar
We will fight our nation's battles
Be they near or be they far..."

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Dec 2008)

A couple of months ago I _imagined_, here how we might pick up a heavier burden.

I suspect we will _drift_ into a tougher, bloodier mission precisely because most Canadians, including most Canadian politicians, know little and care less about foreign policy, security, defence and military deployments. When enough people are sufficiently _agitated_ by too much horror on their TV screens they'll demand that "_someone_ *must do* _something_" and the CF will find itself back in combat, this time in Africa - for another ten or fifteen years or so.


Edit:typo - apologies, bad headache today makes proofing harder than normal for me


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Dec 2008)

Indeed, Edward, indeed. It is my opinion that there will be conditions attached to our withdrawal from Afghanistan, and they wont be ones we attached. We will be expected forced to take on a new operation, or will be could be repercussions. There are more than enough places around the world that make the 'stan look pacific. The chattering classes and the public at large, however, will be smugly satisfied that we finally are doing something on the side of the angels.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Dec 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I suspect we will _drift_ into a tougher, bloodier mission precisely because most Canadians, including most Canadian politicians, know little and care less about foreign policy, security, defence and military deployments. When enough people are sufficiently _agitated_ by too much horror on their TV screens they's demand that "_someone_ *must do* _something_" and the CF will find itself back in combat, this time in Africa - for another ten or fifteen years or so.



Given how ugly things are in that part of the world, I fear I have to agree with you (but optimistic about the timeline) - be careful what you wish for, anyone supporting a Darfur intervention instead of staying in Afghanistan....


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Dec 2008)

Maybe for the next one instead of just fighting a war we'll look at _winning_ a war.   
But then again, you couldn't hope to see peace in Darfur unless there is a Greenbeans there first.  
Peace in our time through mango smoothies!


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Dec 2008)

Edward,

And this was part of your next post on that thread:

If, and it is a HUGE IF the market found its ‘bottom’ last week then, aside from one more rough year (2009), this will not be a bad time to govern Canada and Dion and Layton might want to form a coalition. But, as I have mentioned before, and as Prof. Gibbins notes, while it is fair to for the Liberals and NDP to join with the Bloc to defeat the government, I don’t think Canadians will support any BQ participation in a government. Still, the Liberals and NDP might be able to govern for a while with tacit BQ support – until the Bloc’s demands become too much, as they certainly will.

Most likely, however, the Liberals are only gong to get 25-27% support and Dion will be on his way out and Layton will not want to form a coalition with a party in transition and the Liberals will not want to topple Harper until they have a new leader – by which time things may be looking better and parliament will have been in session long enough for Harper to demand that the GG give him another election.

You got it about three quarters right, which is better than the punditry has been doing.

Mods: Sorry for the hijack, but it was in a good cause.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Dec 2008)

Continuing the Hijack and concurring on Edward's prognostications.

I think what this "crisis" has done is cemented a developing "convention".  What Canadians expect when they cast their vote is that they are voting for a package of member, party, platform, leader.  They are comfortable with most votes wins the seat, most seats wins the government.

Beyond that, if the government falls they expect a say in forming the next government - They want to be able to punish those that made them go back to the polls or that are governing badly and reward those they deem worthy.

I don't think they will ever again tolerate a post-facto parliamentary coalition, nor will they expect the GG to do anything more than stick to clearly defined tramlines.

I believe that Harper will still be in power in 2011.


----------



## TCBF (16 Dec 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ... I believe that Harper will still be in power in 2011.



- My prediction for an answer that will be given during a Question Period in the future:

" ... But, let us be clear, Madame Speaker, that if we decline the invitation of our Afghan allies to stay the course in Afghanistan, and we in fact spend hundreds of millions of dollars dis-engaging from the mission, there will be no funds available in the defence budget to launch into Africa, and - in any case - no fresh troops to carry out any African mission."


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Dec 2008)

Terry Glavin reflects on his recent time in the country, and why the fight is worth it. A long piece in the _National Post_, well worth reading:
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=1080173&p=1

In Afghanistan, an air of hope

Terry Glavin relates a tale of two Kabuls: A city terrorized by jihadist intimidation, a population fuelled by determination. The overwhelming message from Afghans to the West: Please stay



> Among the many things that are likely to surprise a visitor to this city is the Dari version of Marilyn Manson's Personal Jesus that's playing on the radio these days. There is also the exuberant courtesy, solicitousness and friendliness of the place, and the fact that at least four million people live here now. That's about 10 times the population of 30 years ago. The city's motor registry department adds 8,000 new vehicles to its rolls every month.
> 
> I have no excuse to be surprised. I'm well-travelled, I've made Afghanistan a bit of a personal study over the past few years, I'm a co-founder of the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee,
> http://afghanistan-canada-solidarity.org/
> ...



More at his blog, e.g.:
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/10/mayhem-on-froshgah-street-more.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Dec 2008)

Mr Glavin expands at his blog:
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/12/in-todays-national-post-in-afghanistan.html



> ...
> [The Post article]...is a slightly abbreviated version of my essay in Democratiya, here.
> http://www.democratiya.com/review.asp?reviews_id=206
> 
> ...



Lots of links to examples follow.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Dec 2008)

A couple of pieces:

Year of the Afghan mission
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081216.wcoafghan17/BNStory/specialComment/home


> ...
> For Canada...2009 may be crucial. Although 2011 seems far off, we'll soon have to decide whether to continue our Afghan engagement, and in what form if we do. NATO is already planning for the arrival of new U.S. forces in Kandahar. If we wish to carve out specific responsibilities for ourselves, we'll need to make a claim to them, probably before 2010.
> 
> Such decisions, however, presuppose serious public debate in Canada over the next year [emphasis added--see this post, "Afstan and Canadian public discourse"], informed by the evolving circumstances of the mission.
> ...



And from Rosie DiManno in the _Toronto Star_:
http://www.thestar.com/News/Columnist/article/555117


> It is understandable that Canadians, mourning six soldiers killed in two roadside explosions only a week apart, think of Afghanistan as a tragedy almost uniquely our own, these losses most vividly felt and purportedly to little avail.
> 
> That is a perspective born of unforgivable ignorance, manipulated by a faction that has no shame in exploiting private grief.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (30 Dec 2008)

A point of view that deserves some consideration. The idea the war is directed and financed in a large part by "outside" agencies should arouse little controversy. Some of the other ideas are a bit "out there" but there are nuggets of truth:

http://mesopotamiawest.blogspot.com/2008/12/war-in-wrong-country.html



> *A War in the Wrong Country?*
> 
> Is the War in Afghanistan a war in the wrong country? Are we trying to win a proxy war in which the principals, the money and the recruits are based elsewhere? I ask this question because I am concerned and angry at the way our soldiers appear to be sitting ducks for a well-planned, campaign of attrition waged by a foreign state; Pakistan.
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Jan 2009)

A post by Terry Glavin (several links in original):

The Pashtun Peace Forum: Indispensable To Understanding The Afghan Struggle 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/01/pashtun-peace-forum-indispensable-to.html



> A couple of days ago I found myself wondering what life for the Palestinians would be like right now if they had been able to count on a proper anti-war movement these past few years instead of the pseudo-left dog's breakfast we're stuck with. It's a thought that usually occurs to me in the context of Afghanistan, where the contrast between what Afghan progressives say and what the so-called anti-war movement demands is so stark as to defy easy description.
> 
> A common troops-out line, if I can paraphrase, goes something like this: The Afghans are not like us, they are irredeemably backward, hopelessly tribal and warlike, we shouldn't be trying to impose our values on them, you can't bring democracy to people at the barrel of a gun, they hate foreigners, the mission is doomed, just look at what happened to the Russians.
> 
> ...



The good news:

Pakistan al-Qaeda leaders 'dead'
Al-Qaeda's operations chief in Pakistan and another top aide have been killed, US and Pakistani sources say. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7819305.stm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Jan 2009)

A letter of mine in the _Toronto Star_:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/573230



> *A role for us in Afghanistan*
> 
> Jan 19, 2009 04:30 AM
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Redeye (19 Jan 2009)

When I read that this morning in the People's Daily I figured it had to be an Army.ca type - and I can't say I disagree - it would be an excellent (and potentially more politically palatable) way to keep contributing long beyond 2011.



			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> A letter of mine in the _Toronto Star_:
> http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/573230
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Jan 2009)

Redeye: Thanks.  Actually the _Star's_ letters people seem pretty fair-minded.  And they do carry Rosie Dimanno's columns.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Jan 2009)

A (rather lengthy) post at _The Torch_--notes on public appearances:

The _Globe and Mail's_ Graeme Smith (et al.) on Afstan 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/globe-and-mails-graeme-smith-et-al-on.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## sm1lodon (21 Jan 2009)

I have had to remind people over and over that North America has TRIED just turning our backs on conflicts abroad.

Turning our backs, hoping the baddies stay over there and behave NEVER EVER WORKS.

This is one of the reasons we have to be over there. You don't make peace with Hitler by hoping he will go away. You make peace by closing with and destroying him.

History has proven that all that happens when despots with infectious messages of hatred and oppression of others are left to their own devices, everyone loses.

We can't fight every war, everywhere, at all times. We can, however, fight wars where it will do the most good and have the greatest long-term effect.

Right now, the Canadian stance is that this is in Afghanistan. We can not only help them suppress the destructive effects of totalitarian insurgents bent on world domination, we can show them that, yes, the non-Muslim world is not the enemy, because we who are from the largely non-Muslim world are not there to crusade against Islam. We are there to help them to be free from oppression, and choose their own destiny without a knife to their throats.

To betray them is to betray ourselves and cover our faces with shame.


----------



## john10 (23 Jan 2009)

Dexter Filkins has a good piece in the New York Times about NATO's failure to secure the population. I really wonder how effective can be in defeating the insurgency when a large urban area like Kandahar city isn't a security priority.



> It is perhaps in Kandahar, one of the provincial capitals, where the lack of troops is most evident. About 3,000 Canadian soldiers are assigned to secure the city, home to about 500,000 people. In a recent visit, this reporter traveled the city for five days and did not see a single Canadian soldier on the streets.
> 
> The lack of troops has allowed the Taliban to mount significant attacks inside the city. Two clerics who joined a pro-government advisory council, for instance, have been gunned down in the past two months, bringing the total assassinated council members to 24. Over the summer, a Taliban force invaded Kandahar and stormed its main prison, freeing more than 1,200 inmates.



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/asia/22taliban.html?_r=2&ref=world&pagewanted=all


----------



## Franko (23 Jan 2009)

john10 said:
			
		

> Dexter Filkins has a good piece in the New York Times about NATO's failure to secure the population. I really wonder how effective can be in defeating the insurgency when a large urban area like Kandahar city isn't a security priority.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/asia/22taliban.html?_r=2&ref=world&pagewanted=all





Maybe when the other NATO nations start coughing up real numbers and stop hiding in KAF, Kabul or Bagram NATO can start being effective. Another thing is to get the floppers off of KAF and push them out...but that's another thing altogether. The AUP and ANA have higher numbers in Kandahar City than we have. It is a security priority...it's just a big city. It's up to AUP and ANA to step in and sort it out. We are there to help guide them. 

The insurgency isn't only in the city either. It's in the country side being fought every bloody day....you don't hear about it nor see it in the news because the reporters for CTV and CBC are too scared to leave KAF and get their hands dirty, unless someone gets hurt or worse.

I see it, hear it and live it every day. There is alot being done....there is alot of progress....

Just no one gives a rat's arse unless it's negative news.

Sorry for the rant folks....been going solid since September and this comment just pisses me off.

Regards


----------



## zipperhead_cop (23 Jan 2009)

john10 said:
			
		

> I really wonder how effective can be in defeating the insurgency when a large urban area like Kandahar city isn't a security priority.



Your wording is coming off poorly and you are wrong about KC not being a priority.  And it is by and large much harder to secure an urban area than an outlying one.  
Canada isn't in charge of securing KC.  The ANA and ANP are.  We help them where we can but it isn't our gig.
And the article is rather misleading.  There are 3000 odd Canadians here, but they certainly aren't all posted to deal with KC.  In fact, the vast majority of them are support staff.  Kandahar is a rather large province and we are spread quite thin.  
As for "defeating the insurgency" our American friends that are inbound will go a long way to helping out.  But until someone wants to go after the governance piece we are spinning our wheels and wasting our nations treasures.  
From your article:


> A force of about 20,000 American, British, Canadian and Dutch soldiers have been trying for years to secure the 78,000 square miles of villages, cities, mountains and deserts that make up southern Afghanistan.


So that is 3.9 square miles of area for each dude here.  I hope I get the desert part, not the urban area. 
The article isn't too bad, but when it starts throwing around numbers they are skewed.  I'm just not sure why. The part about Tsapozai is funny though.  That part looks like a verbatim exchange.  



			
				Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Sorry for the rant folks....been going solid since September and this comment just pisses me off.



At least you get to turn them into a fine red mist.   ;D  What I would give....


----------



## Franko (23 Jan 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> At least you get to turn them into a fine red mist.   ;D  What I would give....



True enough....forgot about that open, physical way to try and "negotiate" (a la Jack Layton) with the Taliban.

Kind of cathardic....

Regards


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Jan 2009)

A thoughtful post by Vampire 06 (at his blog, _AFGHANISTAN SHRUGGED_), an American soldier embedded with the ANA:
http://afghanistanshrugged.com/2009/01/22/dear-president-obama.aspx



> Dear, President Obama
> 
> I know that you just took office about 48 hours ago and you’ve got a lot on your plate; but I thought I’d provide you with a small letter for SA, situational awareness.  I’m sure that GEN Petraus will provide one for you also; but mine comes from the trenches of the War On Terror.  My team is out here every day making sure that the policies you set forth get carried out; so we see the impact, successes and failures first hand.
> 
> ...


     

Via Paul Synnott:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/please-send-mail.html

*UPDATE* Just by coincidence:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012303505.html


> ...
> Dalawar, a member of the Mohmand tribe, said he is no fan of the Taliban. But in places such as Khuga Kheyl, the pressure on tribal elders to join the Taliban is intense. Electricity is scarce. Paved roads are nonexistent. And insurgent hideouts are abundant on both sides of the border. Dalawar said insurgent commanders regularly try to entice him to join the fight against coalition forces.
> 
> "They tell us to fight alongside them. *They say: 'We will give you roads* emphasis added]. We will give you electricity.' The Taliban, they tell us: 'Look, the Afghan government has given you nothing. If you fight with us, you can have everything,' " Dalawar said. "When we tell them, 'No, we will not do this,' then they tell us they will take our villages by force if they have to."..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Jed (24 Jan 2009)

Now there is a blog (from Vampire06) that I can relate to and support.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Jan 2009)

The best thing we can do to hurt the taliban is to defoliate the poppy fields. They have become the leading opium producer in the region and as such is their primary source of income. Numbers cannot defeat the insurgency. The Russian puppet government had 350,000 troops plus 150,000 Russians and they still couldnt control the countryside. The Russians were successfully attrited by the insurgency and the taliban are trying this same strategy today. If we cannot stop the flow of fighters/supplies from Pakistan then we arent going to defeat this insurgency. If we dont get the Karzai government to be more agressive we will not be successful.Karzai now wants to approve NATO troop deployments and the locations they are to be deployed. He also wants more say in the strategy. At the sametime he is hamstringing us by siding with the "dont bomb civilians" crap when everyone knows they were taliban. I suspect at some point we might be better off offering to pull out and reminding Karzai what happened to Najibullah.


----------



## john10 (25 Jan 2009)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> Maybe when the other NATO nations start coughing up real numbers and stop hiding in KAF, Kabul or Bagram NATO can start being effective. Another thing is to get the floppers off of KAF and push them out...but that's another thing altogether. The AUP and ANA have higher numbers in Kandahar City than we have. It is a security priority...it's just a big city. It's up to AUP and ANA to step in and sort it out. We are there to help guide them.
> 
> The insurgency isn't only in the city either. It's in the country side being fought every bloody day....you don't hear about it nor see it in the news because the reporters for CTV and CBC are too scared to leave KAF and get their hands dirty, unless someone gets hurt or worse.
> 
> ...


 Sorry Recce, I didn't mean to come off the way I did.

best,


----------



## Journeyman (25 Jan 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> *The best thing we can do to hurt the taliban is to defoliate the poppy fields*


Poppy production is a leading source of income for a large portion of the Kandahar/Helmand/Uruzgan population. The people. Win the people. Hearts and minds. Any of this sound familiar? Do you have any options for attracting popular support once you've destroyed their livelihood?



> *Numbers cannot defeat the insurgency*


 If the "numbers" tend to be hunkered down in FOBs or creating powerpoints in KAF, you're likely correct. Historically, insurgencies have been defeated by people (governance, military, law-enforcement, development) out on the ground, interacting with the people. It's a big country; that suggests a lot of "numbers" may be required. It's all a matter of using them to best effect.



> *If we cannot stop the flow of fighters/supplies from Pakistan then we arent going to defeat this insurgency*


 A fine platitude. How?



> * Karzai now wants to approve NATO troop deployments and the locations they are to be deployed. He also wants more say in the strategy*


 Perhaps a niggling detail, but Karzai _is_ the duly elected President of the country. If anyone has a "say," I think he'd be the one.



> *At the sametime he is hamstringing us by siding with the "dont bomb civilians" crap when everyone knows they were taliban*


 My response to this has been typed/erased too many times to count. In the end, this site's  guidelines do not allow the appropriate response. " : " will have to suffice.



> *I suspect at some point we might be better off offering to pull out and reminding Karzai what happened to Najibullah*


Or maybe President Thieu?


----------



## observor 69 (25 Jan 2009)

Journeyman ref your reply to tomahawk6:

Thank you Thank you Thank you


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Jan 2009)

Latest tea leaf reading of a quote from the PM:


> ....“We went to the Parliament, we got our extension to 2011, and that’s what we will do. I will certainly not be making any commitments without the consent of the Parliament of Canada.”....


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jan 2009)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The best thing we can do to hurt the taliban is to defoliate the poppy fields.



I may have to reread "Counterinsurgency 101" or "Hearts-and-Minds for Dummies", but how does that seperate the the insurgent from the populace (drain the swamp, etc, etc, blahblahblah)?



> I suspect at some point we might be better off offering to pull out and reminding Karzai what happened to Najibullah.



So we should encourage him not to run a Communist puppet government?  ???


----------



## Journeyman (26 Jan 2009)

The _Center for a New American Security_ -- a reasonably new beltway think thank -- recently published a short paper entitled, Tell Me Why We’re There? Enduring Interests in Afghanistan (and Pakistan). The authors are (or should be) familiar names: Nathaniel C. Fick, David Kilcullen, John A. Nagl, and Vikram J. Singh.

The gist of their argument is that, "U.S. interests in Afghanistan may be summarized as 'two no’s': there must be no sanctuary for terrorists with global reach in Afghanistan, and there must be no broader regional meltdown." 

Despite the nay-saying of various political, educational, and media spokespeople, the bottom line is that Canada's interests quite often coincide with America's. As such, many of the points raised in the monograph apply equally to Canada.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Jan 2009)

We've just begun to make progress in Afghanistan in the last three years. To expect the Afghan people to change within the time we've been there is unrealistic. It will take education of the younger people to effect real change. Look how long it took the democracies (Canada, US and Britain) to get it right. 
This is a mission worth seeing through.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (27 Jan 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> We've just begun to make progress in Afghanistan in the last three years.


I don't want to be contradictory sir, but if I would be surprised if we are breaking even.  Slightly losing ground is likely more accurate.



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> To expect the Afghan people to change within the time we've been there is unrealistic. It will take education of the younger people to effect real change. Look how long it took the democracies (Canada, US and Britain) to get it right.


They don't need to change anything culturally.  They just have to be held to an accounting, which doesn't happen now.  We have given away several thousand tonnes of carrots and the stick appears to be a McDonald's straw.  
Whether Canada, the US and Britain "have it right" is the stuff for a different thread, but I'm not seeing that either. 



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> This is a mission worth seeing through.


For some reason I still agree with that. 

Vampire 6 was bang on, and Tomahawk 6 is right too.  Perhaps the wording and semantics can be pulled apart, but it doesn't change the fact that this adventure is off the rails.  It has little to do with the Taliban and religious extremism any more and more to do with drug trafficking and organized crime.  If you go after the poppies, you hurt both the Taliban AND the government and their families that are involved in the poppy trade (and are likely working together in the back ground).  Besides, it isn't "us" who would do that anyway.  The ANA/ANP are supposed to be eradicating their countries poppies now.  We would just be helping them.  But when the largest poppy fields are owned by people (let's make up a name...Abdul Waheem Karazek...just off the top of my head) who are tied right to the highest governmental officials, you aren't going to see much progress other than some BS photo op to provide the illusion of progress. 
IMO there are more people concerned with their performance reviews (and this is most certainly not aimed exclusively at the military) and ignoring the reality on the ground than actually saying "hey, this needs a major overhaul".  If this was an exercise, the umpires would have stopped the whole thing, jacked up many people and restarted it.  
Sadly, it would appear that too many people are waiting for "End Ex" to get called and are phoning it in.  That kind of sucks for the forward deployed dudes who get to live with those decisions.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Jan 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> *Vampire 6 was bang on, and Tomahawk 6 is right too. *


OK, Vampire 6 said basically, win hearts and minds by supporting developmental infrastructure (roads, inter-province commerce, education), and political development ("force the Afghan government to start taking the lead").

Tomahawk 6 said basically, eliminate commerce (by destroying their livelihood), political development isn't good ('Karzai now wants to approve NATO troop deployments/locations....and wants more say in the strategy'), and cares nothing of hearts & minds ( "hamstringing us by siding with the 'dont bomb civilians' crap").

Sorry, but the two aren't even close in their thinking -- and it goes well beyond semantics.


As for your conclusion:


> *too many people are waiting for "End Ex" to get called and are phoning it in.*


Sadly, I agree. I suspect that this may be more tied to 'donor fatigue' than unscrupulous leadership. It tends to be even more problematic as rotos draw to a close, and will likely get worse amongst the Canadians as the often-cited ENDEX date of 2011 approaches. 
As a separate thought, it may also get worse as the massive influx of US troops increasingly marginalizes Canadians; with no effective voice at the table, there _may_ be a response of "why bother."


----------



## observor 69 (27 Jan 2009)

More along the last few posters line of thought....ENDEX

The return of the Taliban
As the insurgents infiltrate the area west of Kandahar, Canadian troops concentrate on holding territory until U.S. forces arrive

JANE ARMSTRONG
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
January 27, 2009 at 3:48 AM EST
PASAB, AFGHANISTAN — The foot patrol to Charkuchi, an impoverished rural enclave in western Kandahar province, didn't follow the script. Coalition forces operations in southern Afghanistan rarely do.

The Canadian soldiers, led by Afghan police, were to walk through the mud-walled village, speak to residents, wave at children and inquire about insurgent activity. The goal: to let war-weary Afghan villagers know that Canadian Forces and Afghan police are dug in at a police station a few hundred metres away.

Ten minutes into the patrol, on the outskirts of town, a shot is fired at the troops. The soldiers hit the ground. Crouching in a ditch, Master Corporal Jason Thompson, acting commander of the unit, radios the police station to get a fix on where the shot came from.

It isn't a close call - the gunman is at least 450 metres away - but the patrol is aborted and the soldiers never get a chance to mingle with the Afghans.Two years after the success of Operation Medusa, a Canadian-led routing of Taliban forces from this region of southern Afghanistan, the insurgents have returned, emboldened and newly confident. No longer organized into armies, they have traded the battlefield for guerrilla warfare. They plant roadside bombs, assassinate police officers and, most important, infiltrate villages, compound by family compound, insinuating themselves into the lives of the locals.

"They are everywhere," Corporal Gord Martin, a Canadian Forces mentor for the Afghan police, mused about the insurgents. "They mimic us. Whatever we do, they follow. We've seen them in trees, watching us. They're 300 metres outside these walls."

As Canadian troops wait for an influx of as many as 60,000 U.S. soldiers this year, senior military officials have quietly adjusted their goals. In western Kandahar province's Zhari district, the birthplace of the Taliban movement, the key word is "holding" territory. The now-modest twin goals are to keep the residents safe and prevent insurgents from using the region, as they do in depopulated northern districts, as a freeway into Kandahar city.
Canadian soldiers on their daily foot patrols try to persuade wary Afghans to spurn Taliban incursions into their villages and put their faith in Afghan and coalition forces, an effort that has been met with mixed results.

When a Canadian soldier has tea with a local elder, the Taliban show up five minutes after the Canadian has left, demanding to know what was discussed. When Canadians distribute posters urging locals to call the police with news of insurgent activity, the Taliban distribute their own literature reminding locals that co-operating with foreign forces is un-Islamic. Insurgents have killed civilians for co-operating with security forces; and while many Afghans would like to side with legitimate security forces, they are afraid, hedging their bets to see who comes out on top in southern Afghanistan.

On a recent foot patrol in another Zhari village, Captain Fern Bosse stopped to chat with a bearded elder. The man was familiar with Capt. Bosse's unit, which has been stationed in the region since August. The Afghan was upset about a series of compound searches by coalition and Afghan forces. Villagers have grown to resent these searches, which disrupt their lives but bring no guarantee of security.

Capt. Bosse said the searches must continue. "It's not because I don't trust [the villagers]" he said as he walked through the winding streets of the village. "But the Taliban is just west of here," he added, raising his hand to a row of fields in the direction of the setting sun. "There's nothing to stop them from coming in at night and putting their weapons in a compound."

To a large degree, the insurgency's tactics have worked. Reconstruction and development plans have been delayed or shelved as securing the region becomes the chief priority of stretched coalition forces.

Today, Canadian troops are simply holding on to hard-won territory, trying to secure crucial rural areas west of Kandahar city to prevent insurgents from getting a foothold in the provincial capital. They've already ceded some districts to the north. Ghorak, for example, has fallen to the Taliban and large swaths of territory in western Zhari are no-go zones for Canadian troops.

But the landscape is about to change, as is Canada's role in the Kandahar countryside, with the imminent arrival of U.S. troops. The Americans will be dispatched to the countryside, while Canadian forces will be deployed closer to Kandahar city. Eventually, the provincial capital will become the main focus of Canadian efforts in southern Afghanistan.

Senior military officials say they're confident the new strategy will work.

"What we think is, if we can concentrate security, governance and reconstruction development in certain areas, we will reach a kind of tipping point in which we will see an accelerated progress," said Major-General Mart de Kruif, commander of NATO forces in southern Afghanistan.

"People will feel safe, reconstruction and redevelopment will gain fruit. We can open schools, open markets. We will have access to markets. ... And once you reach that tipping point, then the whole dynamic changes."

With tens of thousands of new troops expected on the ground, a better-trained Afghan National Army and an improved Canadian-led reconstruction team in Kandahar city, Gen. de Kruif said coalition forces will be in a better position to secure southern Afghanistan.

For now, Canadians hope to hold the fort until more help arrives.

"We're aren't trying to drag [Afghans] into the modern world," an officer said.

"We're not trying to convince them that democracy and TV is the answer to their problems. What we're trying to do is build up government [institutions] to actually provide for them."


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090127.wafghan27/BNStory/Afghanistan/home


----------



## Blue Max (27 Jan 2009)

IMHO, I partially agree with Tomahawk6 regarding the poppy fields. But just as it is not enough to just kill the tangos, but to also rebuild the country, you must offer the poor farmer an alternative to opium, whether it be some other cash viable crop, or to licence some poppie growth for medical use such as Morphine.

Having said that, the monumental effort that Canadian troops are making on the mission in As-tan, will only be a game of "hit the gofer on the head", if the open sore of Pakistan is not resolved.  Hopefully the US surge will go a long way to enabling the elected Afghan govt in policing its lands soon.

Good luck in your mission gentlemen, and come home safe.


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Jan 2009)

Excerpts from a rather cold-blooded GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT by George Friedman in _STRATFOR_ (no mention of NATO):

Strategic Divergence: The War Against the Taliban and the War Against Al Qaeda
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090126_strategic_divergence_war_against_taliban_and_war_against_al_qaeda



> ...it is now time to focus on the central issue. What are the strategic goals of the United States in Afghanistan? What resources will be devoted to this mission? What are the intentions and capabilities of the Taliban and others fighting the United States and its NATO allies? Most important, what is the relationship between the war against the Taliban and the war against al Qaeda? If the United States encounters difficulties in the war against the Taliban, will it still be able to contain not only al Qaeda but other terrorist groups? Does the United States need to succeed against the Taliban to be successful against transnational Islamist terrorists? And assuming that U.S. forces are built up in Afghanistan and that the supply problem through Pakistan is solved, are the defeat of Taliban and the disruption of al Qaeda likely?..
> 
> *The Taliban and the Guerrilla Warfare Challenge*
> 
> ...



Odd that Mr Friedman never deals with efforts to turn the ANA and the Afghan Uniformed Police into effective forces.  And what of the effect on Pakistan if the Taliban take over, at a minimum, most of eastern and southern Afstan--surely not a happy prospect from the standpoint of US national interest?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Jan 2009)

A post at _The Torch_: 

Afstan: Why writing letters to the _Toronto Star_ (gasp!) can pay off
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/

Background:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/573230
http://www.thestar.com/article/577663

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## leroi (27 Jan 2009)

Looks like someone scooped your ideas.

Good work, Mark!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Jan 2009)

Good Stratfor article.  
Consider this:  If one were to want to have a convenient jumping off point to hit, say, Iran (or be able to threaten same) or wanted to keep a closer eye on Pakistan/Russia/China, would one have a vested interest in making things _too_ good in Afghanistan?  One cannot justify creating foriegn mega-bases without a conflict to point at.  
Jus sayin'....


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Jan 2009)

Two more perspectives:

1) _Washington Post_ editorial:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012803267.html



> FOR YEARS, Democrats excoriated the Bush administration for not devoting sufficient resources to Afghanistan. But now that Barack Obama has taken office, some seem to be having second thoughts. "Our original goal was to go in there and take on al-Qaeda. . . . It was not to adopt the 51st state of the United States," said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Kerry pioneered the Democratic argument to send more troops during his own presidential campaign in 2004. Now he says "the parallels" to Vietnam "just really keep leaping out in so many different ways."
> 
> Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates seconded that skepticism at a congressional hearing on Tuesday. "If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of Central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose," he said, "because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience and money, to be honest."
> 
> ...



2) From a founding member of the Canada Afghanistan Solidarity Committee:

The cultural relativists can't excuse evil
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/cultural+relativists+excuse+evil/1229247/story.html



> In November, when a group of unveiled girls was attacked by men on motorcycles who sprayed acid in their faces as they were walking to morning classes in Kandahar, Canadians were shocked...
> 
> ...millions of brave Afghan schoolgirls are dedicated to pursuing their studies, in sometimes perilous and hostile circumstances, and their devotion is heartfelt, homegrown and hardy. It has not been "imposed" upon them by the "West."
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (29 Jan 2009)

Gates Predicts 'Slog' in Afghanistan
U.S. Military Can Achieve Limited Goals in Conflict, Defense Secretary Testifies

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer 
Wednesday, January 28, 2009; Page A06
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday signaled sharply lower expectations for the war in Afghanistan, warning the conflict will be "a long slog" and that U.S. and allied military forces, even at higher levels, can achieve limited goals.

Gates said the U.S. military expects to be able to send three additional combat brigades -- between 10,000 and 12,000 troops -- to Afghanistan between late spring and midsummer to address a security vacuum "that increasingly has been filled by the Taliban."

Still, he warned that he would be "deeply skeptical" of any further U.S. troop increases, saying that Afghan soldiers and police must take the lead, in part so that the Afghan public does not turn against U.S. forces as it has against foreign troops throughout history. The U.S. force in Afghanistan numbers about 36,000, and commanders there have asked for as many as 30,000 more combat and support troops.
"There is little doubt that our greatest military challenge right now is Afghanistan," Gates said, marking the formal shift in priorities away from Iraq in his first congressional testimony as Pentagon chief under President Obama. Still, Gates said, U.S. goals in Afghanistan must be "modest" and "realistic."

"This is going to be a long slog, and frankly, my view is that we need to be very careful about the nature of the goals we set for ourselves in Afghanistan," he said. "If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose, because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience and money," Gates testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. (Valhalla is used as a synonym for heaven, but in Norse mythology it is a great hall where heroes slain in battle are received.)

Civilian casualties resulting from U.S. combat and airstrikes have been particularly harmful to progress in Afghanistan and must be avoided, Gates stressed. "My worry is that the Afghans come to see us as part of their problem rather than part of their solution, and then we are lost," he said.Moreover, the U.S. military must immediately voice regret for any civilian casualties, rather than waiting to investigate the details, Gates said in separate testimony before the House Armed Services Committee yesterday afternoon.

Gates said this is necessary to counter Taliban insurgents, who he said hide among the population and then report civilian deaths in coalition military operations quickly and widely on the Internet. "The instant we believe there may have been civilian casualties, we have to be out there" expressing condolences, rather than arguing over the numbers, he said.

Gates also warned of Iranian interference in Afghanistan, pointing to a slightly increased flow of weapons including components of lethal munitions known as "explosively formed projectiles." He said Iran wants to "have it both ways," seeking economic and diplomatic benefits of relations with Kabul while still attempting to impose "the highest possible costs" on U.S. and coalition troops.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen said at a news conference late yesterday that roadside bomb and suicide attacks in Afghanistan have increased an estimated 40 percent over last year.

Iranian activities have been troubling in other parts of the world, Gates said, including Latin America, where Iran is setting up "a lot of offices and a lot of fronts."

On Iraq, Gates said Pentagon and military leaders are working on several timetables for U.S. troops to move from a combat to an advisory role beginning as early as 16 months from now and extending until the end of 2011. The options for and risks of withdrawing the 142,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq are being presented to Obama, who will meet with the Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon today, Gates said.

At the Pentagon, Gates made it clear that in a time of financial austerity his priority will be to reform the Pentagon's cumbersome acquisition process while crafting "a unified defense strategy that determines our budget priorities."

"The spigot of defense spending that opened on 9/11 is closing. With two major campaigns ongoing, the economic crisis and resulting budget pressures will force hard choices on this department," he said.

In particular, he criticized "entrenched attitudes throughout the government" that he said "are particularly pronounced in the area of acquisition: a risk-averse culture, a litigious process, parochial interests, excessive and changing requirements, budget churn and instability, and sometimes adversarial relationships" between the Pentagon and other parts of government.

Gates gave few details about the upcoming defense budget but offered a glimpse of how he will approach his pledge to take a hard look at Pentagon spending on weapons systems. New weapons systems should be able to address a "hybrid" threat from enemies who combine high technology with insurgent tactics.

"I want us to look for systems that have the maximum possible flexibility across the broadest possible range of conflict," he said in the House testimony.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/27/AR2009012700472.html?hpid=sec-nation


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Feb 2009)

Paddy Ashdown's advice to Richard Holbrooke (usual copyright disclaimer):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5634470.ece



> Dear Richard,
> 
> I'm glad that President Obama chose you as his special envoy in Afghanistan.
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/afstan-to-fore.html
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman (2 Feb 2009)

He's absolutely correct in his advice, and people will all nod their heads in agreement -- and continue to tie aid to specific agendas, POLADS will continue to push for a Westernized central government, national caveats will limit military abilities, and the tactical view ('British thinking Afghanistan is Helmand; Canadians, Kandahar...') will continue to trump strategic requirements.

Despite lofty, and I believe correct, advice, the various players will default to what they know best; it's what we do -- hence the profusion of conflicting advice and operations.


In a similar vein, but from a predominantly military perspective, I'd recommend Col. Ian Hope's article,
UNITY OF COMMAND IN AFGHANISTAN: 
A FORSAKEN PRINCIPLE OF WAR


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Feb 2009)

A curse upon the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (please check the links within _The Torch_ post):
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/curse-upon-canadian-broadcasting.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Feb 2009)

Maj.-Gen. (ret'd) Lewis MacKenzie suggests how Canada might respond to the new US administration:

Has Uncle Sam run out of patience?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090202.wcoafghan03/BNStory/specialComment/home


> ...
> There is little doubt that the current euphoria accompanying the new President into office will make it more difficult for NATO leaders to say no when the inevitable requests for additional troop support are made. Canadian commentators are already speculating that we will be asked to stay in Afghanistan in a combat role after 2011. Mr. Obama could well raise the issue during his visit.
> 
> The painful truth is that Canada will not be capable of remaining in Afghanistan in a combat role beyond 2011. Indeed, remaining in such a role until 2011 will present enough of its own problems and challenges.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Feb 2009)

A _Torch_ post:

The "Americanization" of ISAF 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/americanization-of-isaf.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## leroi (7 Feb 2009)

One encouraging opinion from The Walrus:  March 2009.

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2009.03-letters-letters-march-2009/

From the _Letters_ (Reproduced under the Fair Dealing Provision of the Copyright Act.)

The Key to Kabul

I have been engaged in health care development and policy work for more than three of the past eight years in Afghanistan, most recently in Kabul. A friend sent me Charles Montgomery’s article “The Archipelago of Fear” (December 2008), which I thought a reasonably good representation of the dysfunction that plagues the city’s reconstruction and the effect of architectural fearmongering on its people.

But Montgomery doesn’t give any credit where it’s due: to the organizations, both national and international, that have improved the economic situation, literacy, and health of the Afghan people. Some of us were in here before the barriers were built, when we could meet the people. I speak enough Dari to get by and have, unlike most of the westerners in Montgomery’s article, made a tremendous effort to understand the culture and bring this knowledge to bear in my work. Of course, it’s easy to see why successes like mine didn’t make it into the story. Those of us who don’t hang out at L’Atmosphère are harder to find. 

It’s typical for the media to focus on the hopelessness of the situation in Afghanistan. But I was also here during the Taliban regime, and I can assure readers there have been many positive changes since then. Maybe if reporters had witnessed this change themselves, they would see fit to broadcast some hope. 

Maureen Mayhew 
Management Sciences for Health 
Kabul, Afghanistan


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Feb 2009)

Further to leroi:

Management Sciences for Health: Afghanistan:
http://www.msh.org/global-presence/asia/afghanistan.cfm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Feb 2009)

A post at _The Torch_:

President Obama and Afstan 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/president-obama-and-afstan.html

*Predate:* Another one:

CF at Kandahar: Repositioning--and reinforcing (temporarily)? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/cf-at-kandahar-repositioning-and.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Feb 2009)

Afstan and the Munich Security Conference--some nice posts by Paul Wells of_ Maclean's_:

Verbatim: Peter MacKay on the future of Afghanistan [He quotes T.S. Eliot! That's our Peter!]
http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/02/09/verbatim-peter-mackay-on-the-future-of-afghanistan/

More from Munich: Gen. Petraeus’ no-spin zone
http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/02/09/more-from-munich-gen-petraeus-no-spin-zone/

More from Munich: Holbrooke in frustration
http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/02/10/more-from-munich-holbrooke-in-frustration/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (10 Feb 2009)

Paul Wells entertaining and informing as always, thanks for the link Mark.


----------



## GAP (12 Feb 2009)

If Obama asks us to stay in Afghanistan, can we refuse?
For years, Canada has been asking others to step up to the plate
L. IAN MACDONALD, The Gazette Published: Wednesday, February 11
Article Link

Under beware of what you wish for, Canada has long asked the United States and other NATO partners to step up their commitments to the mission in Afghanistan.

Welcome Barack Obama, who wants to double the U.S. commitment to 60,000 troops on the ground there. The problem for Canada is that after asking for reinforcements as a condition of prolonging our stay there for another two years, Stephen Harper announced during last fall's campaign that we would be leaving the country in 2011.

So, while a liberal Democrat makes one campaign promise to shift the military focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, and even to Pakistan, a Conservative Canadian leader is saying we've done our part and are leaving the neighbourhood. Huh?

Do you think this is going to be on the agenda when the prime minister and the president have their first working session in Ottawa next week? They've already got a full agenda with the recession and their economic recovery plans, trade and protectionism, energy and the environment. But Afghanistan looms large, as Obama's first major foreign policy move, and his first deployment as commander-in-chief.

And there's a lot that can go wrong in a war that is not going well. It is far from clear that a doubling of U.S. troop strength will improve things on the ground, and could even make things worse in the sense that they will be an inviting target for the Taliban insurgency. U.S. air power, while impressive, also has a history of inflicting collateral damage on civilians, which doesn't win over the hearts and minds of local populations.

Obama is in the midst of a 60-day review of the U.S. Afghan mission, and his special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, is currently in the region making his own assessment. For our part, the 2,500 Canadians continue their challenging mission in southern Kandahar province, home base of the Taliban. We have now suffered more than 100 deaths in the country since 2001, and we've been in the south since the summer of 2005.

The geographical, economic, political and ethnic challenges of Afghanistan are no mystery. It is a landlocked country the size of Manitoba, mountainous, rural, remote and bereft of agricultural products and natural resources. It is the fifth poorest country on Earth, and the average Afghan lives on $1 a day. Its major cash crop is poppy, which supplies most of the world's heroin and accounts for two-thirds of the country's output. The country has been called a failed narco state.
More on link


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Feb 2009)

1) The US surge--and (unilateral) strategy review:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-afghan11-2009feb11,0,1063621.story

Obama team works to overhaul Afghanistan-Pakistan policy
The president is likely to decide on the details of a U.S. troop increase in Afghanistan in the coming days, Gates says.



> The Obama administration plans to complete its overhaul of U.S. policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan by April, before a crucial NATO summit, the White House said Tuesday in announcing the new head of its review.
> 
> Before the reassessment is complete, President Obama is likely to decide on the details of a U.S. troop increase in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said.
> "The president will have several options in front of him, and *I think he will make those decisions probably in the course of the next few days* [emphasis added]," Gates said.
> ...



Still lots to hammer out for that strategy: how much emphasis on Afghan national governance/development? talking with which (if any) important Taliban types? what combat strategy and tactics for US forces? what to do about Pakistan? what to do about NATO?

2) Juggling strategy, brigades, and Afstan vs. Iraq:

Obama Weighs Adding Troops in Afghanistan 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/world/asia/12prexy.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper



> President Obama is facing a choice on whether to grant commanders’ requests for additional troops in Afghanistan before he has decided on his new strategy there.
> 
> While the decision is expected to be the first significant military move of his presidency, defense officials said that Mr. Obama could choose a middle ground, deploying several thousand more troops there in the coming months but postponing a more difficult judgment on a much larger increase in personnel until after the administration completes a review of Afghanistan policy.
> 
> ...



3) Haroon Siddiqui of the Toronto Star seems to be the first Canadian pundit to glom onto the, er, unilateral nature of President Obama's Afghan policy making (something pointed out at the end of this _Torch_ post eight days ago). 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/americanization-of-isaf.html
But that's fine with Mr Siddiqui; simply because, one must assume, the new president is NOT GEORGE BUSH. And if there are any problems created for Canada, it's all--natch--STEPHEN HARPER'S FAULT (one still has Bush-lite to kick around, eh?):

Missing out on Obama's Afghan plan
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/586182



> A fundamental shift is underway in American policy on Afghanistan. And Canada should be scrambling to be part of the process.
> 
> If we don't, Barack Obama will be handing us, and all the NATO members in the Afghan mission, a fait accompli in about two months.
> 
> ...



COMMUNITY POLICING!?!? Which has worked so well in Toronto?

Mark
Ottwa


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Feb 2009)

A post by Brian Platt at _The Canada-Afghanistan Blog_:

Dinner With The Governor
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/2009/02/dinner-with-governor.html



> I was lucky enough last week to get an invitation to a dinner with the Governor of Kandahar province. We ate at a very nice Afghan restaurant in Surrey.
> 
> Tooryalai Wesa was named as the Governor in December, and it was a surprise for quite a few of us in the Vancouver area. Dr. Wesa has taught at the University of British Columbia and been active in the community in various ways, including organizing the Afghan Film Festival.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Feb 2009)

A post by Terry Glavin, relevant to AfPak:

Tariq Ali: Archetype of the Dead Left
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/02/tariq-ali-archetype-of-dead-left.html

And from Raphael Alexander:

The Cognitive Dissonance Of The “Pseudo-Left” 
http://unambig.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-the-pseudo-left/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Feb 2009)

Dealing with St. Steve Staples and Prof. Michael Byers--a _Torch_ post:

Afstan shocker! Canadian troops could stay 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/afstan-shocker-canadian-troops-could.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Feb 2009)

Two more _Torch_ posts:

Keep that Air Wing at Kandahar (plus quite a bit of Army) 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/keep-that-air-wing-at-kandahar-plus.html

"Getting our act together in Afghanistan"--and roads
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/getting-our-act-together-in-afghanistan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Feb 2009)

Maybe it's all about roads:

1) Thomas Ricks

Getting our act together in Afghanistan
Sun, 02/15/2009 - 11:26am
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/15/getting_our_act_together_in_afghanistan



> Here is a guest report from my friend Maj. Daniel Morgan, who is not the Revolutionary War general, but who is nearing the end of a tour of duty with 101st Airborne in Afghanistan (and also has a couple of Iraq tours under his belt).
> 
> I was especially struck by his point about cross-border communications between units below high-level headquarters. It is the type of answer that doesn't occur to anybody in a national capital -- but can make a major difference to someone spending a year-long combat tour in a remote corner of eastern Afghanistan:
> 
> ...



2) VAMPIRE 06

Dear President Obama
Jan. 22, 2009
http://afghanistanshrugged.com/2009/01/22/dear-president-obama.aspx


> ...
> Roads, we need more of them. A lot more! This is the cornerstone to building Afghanistan and the government. The Romans were successful not because of military technology, it helped, but because they built an extensive road network. Many of which still exist today and are in better shape than roads in Afghanistan.
> 
> Without roads the Afghans don’t really need a centralized government. That’s a broad statement but I’ll qualify it here in a minute. The tribe pretty much provides what they need. The tribe protects them, settles disputes and enforces laws. They’re more than capable of doing this and have been for the last several centuries. They fulfill the basic governmental requirements common defense, law and order.
> ...



The CF, for their part, have been taking on road-building:

Canadian military road-building project provides lifeline for Afghani people
Canadian military will spending $4.5 million over two years on 6.5-kilometre Panjwaii road 
Feb. 13, 2008
http://www.dailycommercialnews.com/article/id26384



> PANJWAII DISTRICT, AFGHANISTAN
> 
> Roads are for the living but the Canadian military has begun a massive road-building project that will also honour the dead in one of the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan.
> 
> The $4.5 million project to pave 6.5 kilometres of road that a local elder called the “Spine of the Panjwaii” is a two-year undertaking that will give jobs to more than 400 Afghans...



Would be interesting to know how that project is going.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Feb 2009)

Video of a forthright and extensive interview with the president's new special representative for AfPak, from the PBS "Newshour", Feb. 18:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/module.html?mod=0&pkg=18022009&seg=4

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (20 Feb 2009)

The New York Times

February 20, 2009
Editorial

Salvaging Afghanistan 

President Obama and his aides haven’t completed their policy review for Afghanistan — one of the most dangerous of the many foreign policy disasters George W. Bush so blithely left behind. But the situation is unraveling so quickly that aides say that the president decided that he had no choice but to send another 17,000 troops while commanders and diplomats try to come up with a strategy to stop the bloodletting and to try to block the Taliban from recapturing the country. There isn’t a lot of time. 

In coming weeks, Mr. Obama will have to grapple with a series of very difficult questions starting with how he will define success in Afghanistan. The president will have to consider whether to keep supporting a central government in Kabul or focus more on cultivating local leaders. The rampant corruption of President Hamid Karzai’s government has driven far too many Afghans back to the extremists.

During the campaign, Mr. Obama said that he was open to talks with some Afghan militants. In recent weeks, American commanders said they are expanding contacts with so-called moderate members of the Taliban. At this point, there may be no other choice. 

But we are deeply skeptical that there is any deal to be cut with Taliban leaders who gave sanctuary to Al Qaeda before 9/11 and would undoubtedly insist on reimposing their repressive, medieval ways, including denying education and medical care to women.

Mr. Obama and his team also must quickly come up with a plan to more effectively expand and train the Afghan Army (which eventually must replace American and NATO troops) and police force, curb a $720 million Afghan opium industry that finances the Taliban and encourage development along the Afghan-Pakistan border. 

Mr. Obama will have to figure out a way to persuade NATO allies to send more troops — with orders to fight — and more money. Along with the United States, Britain, Canada and the Netherlands have been carrying nearly all of the burden. The new American president has rock star ratings in Europe. He needs to leverage some of that to get leaders there to finally ante up. 

Mr. Obama’s biggest challenge will be trying to figure out how to persuade Pakistan that the fight against extremism is not a favor to the Americans. It is essential to Pakistan’s own survival.

The nuclear-armed country faces terrifying problems: political and economic instability, home-grown extremists who are far too cozy with Pakistan’s intelligence services, a lawless border region used by the Taliban to execute bloody attacks on Afghanistan. This week the government effectively ceded the Swat Valley — which is in the border region but just 100 miles from Islamabad — to militants in a misguided bid for a false peace. 

The White House’s decision to bring senior Pakistani and Afghan officials into the policy discussion — they visit Washington next week — is very welcome. Saudi Arabia, Iran and India must also be involved.

Mr. Obama goes to Europe the first week of April for a NATO summit. He has told aides to come up with a strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan before then. Given how fast things are coming apart in Afghanistan — the Taliban have now moved into peaceful areas near Kabul — they may have to decide even faster. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/opinion/20fri1.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print


----------



## leroi (22 Feb 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Video of a forthright and extensive interview with the president's new special representative for AfPak, from the PBS "Newshour", Feb. 18:
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/module.html?mod=0&pkg=18022009&seg=4
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Thanks Mark that was a good interview.  Halbrooke seems like a straight-shooter. I kinda chortled at the end when Judy tried to criticize Obama for not acting on Afghanistan sooner--good lord how much faster could he act? It's only a month or so since he became president, isn't it? 

Here are three C's for my wish-list on the Afghan mission: Consultation, Coordination & Collaboration between partner countries. :nod:

It's good he's begun consulting with other countries on Afghanistan. Steven Harper and Lawrence Cannon go to New York next week:


After Obama visit, PM and Minister Cannon head to U.S. to talk Afghanistan

Associated Press (Reproduced under the _Fair Dealing _ provision of the _Copyright Act_.)
Feb. 20, 2009


OTTAWA — In the wake of Barack Obama's trip to Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and one of his senior ministers will travel to the United States next week.

Afghanistan will be on the agenda for both Harper and Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon on their separate trips to New York and Washington.

Officials on both sides of the border say the visits will emphasize development issues in Afghanistan, not combat.

The non-military focus of those discussions was announced Friday as White House officials acknowledged Canada's stated position that it will end its combat role in 2011.

Obama revealed during his visit that he did not press Harper for an extended commitment, and the president's officials said Friday that they will now steer the conversation to other areas.

"Prime Minister Harper stressed the fact that this was not open for review. They were going to be there until 2011," said James Steinberg, U.S. deputy secretary of state .

"I think, from the president's point of view, the focus was, we're going to focus on the other legs of the stool - on the governance issues, on the development issues, on the political strategy."

He said during a media briefing that the new U.S. administration wants to hear Canada's opinions as it conducts a strategic review of its own Afghan operations.

Obama has already said he will send at least 17,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan, as combat intensifies there while it winds down in Iraq.

Steinberg added that with a critical NATO summit just six weeks away, the new administration must quickly determine how allied countries can co-ordinate their efforts more effectively.

"Until we have greater clarity about what we think the right way forward is, we're not focusing on specific asks so much as really collaborating and consulting with others about their own views about this," Steinberg said.

"As we get closer to the summit, obviously, we're going to want to work with our allies to have a more concrete game plan about who can contribute what."

The prime minister will head to New York on Monday for a pair of meetings.

The first - with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon - will focus on global security and on Afghanistan.

A Canadian official, citing safety concerns, declined to say whether the recent abduction of diplomat Robert Fowler in Niger would also be discussed.

Harper has also scheduled a round-table meeting with business leaders in New York, with the global financial crisis is likely to be the top item.

Harper's U.S. visit was being planned before Obama came to Canada. But the official said it will help capitalize on the goodwill created during the president's trip.

And he said that Conservatives hope positive initiatives will define the Canada-U.S. conversation, instead of allowing inevitable skirmishes over trade and foreign policy dominate discussion as they have in the past.

"There will always be irritants in a relationship that is as broad and deep as the Canada-U.S. relationship," the Canadian official said.

"But it is in the interests of both countries not to let the irritants becoming the defining features of that relationship."

On Tuesday, Cannon will visit Washington for a meeting with his famous American counterpart: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

American and Canadian officials said the two will talk about Afghanistan, and the ongoing U.S. strategic review.

"The prime minister and president set out an agenda yesterday," said Cannon spokeswoman Catherine Loubier.

"Minister Cannon and secretary Clinton are immediately engaging to deliver on this agenda." 

Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Feb 2009)

> "The United States, for a whole series of reasons, from exceptionalism to neo-conism to hubris to ignorance about the world, is conducting itself in a way that is creating a lot of enemies



So says Paul Heinbecker "former Canadian Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations and former Ambassador to Germany ".......an obviously even-handed appreciation of US intent.

And people wonder why Canada was/is considered anti-american.


----------



## dreddman (24 Feb 2009)

Everyone,
This is not a reply but a request. First of all and I want the administrators to know this. I am not in the military but I am head of policy for the Progressive Canadian Party. I found this site when I was goggling Flora MacDonald and saw some comments from the rank and file about her work in Afghanistan. I was impressed with what I read, so much so that I wanted to join. I am starting talks with Ms. MacDonald about working with us to chart a policy on Afghanistan that is different than any other Canadian Party. I also believe that the people on the front lines know more about the situations the Canadian Military face better than any paper produced by someone in Ottawa. If I am allowed, I would like to hear from people from this site on their views on the Canadian Military and its future roles. If I am not allowed to still be on this site, I would like to offer my personal email at rmorley1@sympatico.ca to still hear from you. Thank you


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Feb 2009)

Some recent quotes from CAN politicians re:  2011....


> ...."We have a firm date, an end to the combat mission," Defence Minister Peter MacKay told reporters in Krakow, Poland on Friday ....





> ....Mr. Ignatieff hinted his Liberals may support an extension of Canada's military mission if a real strategy is developed.  "What I said to the president very directly is that you can't get us to re-up in a situation of strategic incoherence," Mr. Ignatieff said.  When asked if he'd support an American request to extend the mission, the Liberal leader said: "We cross that bridge when we come to it.  We're bound by the parliamentary resolution. I've said clearly that our party's position, currently, is that the military phase of the mission ends in 2011" ....


----------



## PanaEng (25 Feb 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Some recent quotes from CAN politicians re:  2011....


... and people wonder why I like Ignatieff...


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Feb 2009)

Highlights mine...

*Cost of the Afghanistan mission 2001-2011*
Government of Canada backgrounder, 25 Feb 09
Backgrounder link (.pdf also attached if link not working)

Canada’s aim is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a viable country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure. We are there with more than 50 other nations and international organizations, at the request of the democratically-elected Afghan government and as part of a UN-mandated, NATO-led mission. Canada is among the top bilateral donors in Afghanistan in the world today and Afghanistan is the single largest recipient of Canadian development aid.

The incremental cost of the mission to the Government of Canada (GoC) in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2011 is *currently estimated at approximately $11.3 billion, excluding post-2011 disability and health care costs for veterans*. These incremental costs are calculated at *approximately $9B for National Defence (DND)* and approximately $2.3B for other departments – including *$1.7B for the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), $400M for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) (costs for Corrections and the RCMP are included in DFAIT calculations), and $150M for Veteran’s Affairs Canada (VAC)*....

_More on link, attachment_


----------



## GAP (27 Feb 2009)

Life as a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan  
Posted By BRENNAN CRUSE Posted 2 hours ago
  Article Link

Imagine lying in the middle of the desert with the sound of bombs all around you, and terrified to death that someone is going to see you lying there. And if they do, knowing that you will have to be quick to fire your gun because if you don't, then they will fire at you. Imagine knowing that you could die any minute, that you could just be driving along and a bomb explode, blowing you to pieces. And imagine, wondering every day of your life if you'll ever see your family again. 

Honourable judges and fellow guests, I have just described for you, the life of a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan. 

Remember the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center back in September of 2001? Well, in response to these attacks, the president of the United States launched an invasion of Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden, the terrorist leader that was behind the Sept. 11 attacks. And then, in January of 2002, Canadian troops were sent to Afghanistan to perform a peacekeeping mission. Yeah, that's right, a peacekeeping mission. That was what we were sent there for. 

Now, seven years later, and after losing 108 of our Canadian soldiers, I would say that our job in Afghanistan, one of the most unforgiving places on earth, is far more than a peacekeeping mission. When the Canadian government agreed to support the United States by sending our troops into Afghanistan, they thought it would be a sprint, not a marathon. They thought it would all be over in two months. And even now, they keep changing the date that they say we will pull our troops out -- at first they said we would be out of there in 2007, then it was 2009, now they're saying 2011. I wonder what's next. The news from A f g ha n i s t a n has never been assuring, and Canadian troops in A f g ha n i s t a n face the dangers of war daily. Currently, we have 2,700 Canadian troops posted in Kandahar City, one of the most dangerous locations on the planet. 

What are our Canadian troops doing over there? Well, their job is to help the Afghan military stabilize their country. What this means is that our Canadian soldiers are training the Afghan soldiers to protect their people from the Taliban terrorists. The problem is, these terrorists are hiding bombs all over the place, and thousands of innocent people have lost their lives, and more die, every single day. Roadside bombs and suicide bombers are everywhere. Suicide bombers are convinced that they will go to paradise if they kill the foreign soldiers. 

Even after seven long years of training, the Afghan military still are not trained. The number of attacks is on the increase, and the number of Canadian soldiers dead continues to rise. Just in December, we lost seven more Canadian soldiers. 

Canadians in Afghanistan are unable to move among the local people unless they are armed and battle ready. They can't trust their safety to the Afghan army, even though they have been training them for years. 

When is it all going to end? When are our Canadian troops going to come home at last? How are we ever going to get out of there, when the terrorist attacks keep happening? Do you really think that we will ever be able to stabilize a country that has never been strong enough to stabilize themselves? I don't mean to sound like we shouldn't help other countries, of course we should. But come on, enough is enough. 

And, on a more personal note, my uncle, Casey, is one of those soldiers over in Afghanistan. Every day for him is like a lottery ticket, you never know what's going to happen, whether you're going to win or lose, live, or die. My uncle's military vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb two weeks ago. His Afghan interpreter was blown to bits, he said it was like raining body parts. His best friend had both his eardrums blown out. My uncle was lucky that all he got was an injured back. This time anyway. 

When Canadian soldiers die in Afghanistan, they are flown home on military planes and begin a procession down Highway 401, now called the Highway of Heroes. Canadian people stand on the bridges all along the highway and salute our fallen soldiers. The family gathers at the military base to say one last goodbye to their loved one. 

I sure hope my family never gets that call to say goodbye.
More on link


----------



## zipperhead_cop (27 Feb 2009)

And doubtless Kandahars warlords provincial leadership are grateful for the contributions to their bank accounts.  Keep it coming!!


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Feb 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> Life as a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan
> 
> Remember the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center back in September of 2001? Well, in response to these attacks, the president of the United States launched an invasion of Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden, the terrorist leader that was behind the Sept. 11 attacks. And then, in January of 2002, *Canadian troops were sent to Afghanistan to perform a peacekeeping mission*. Yeah, that's right, a peacekeeping mission. That was what we were sent there for.


I love revisionist history.  Enough said.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Feb 2009)

My son was KIA on 3 Sep 2008 in the Zhari district. I resent this article, using the 108 fallen soldiers plus the diplomat and two aid workers who were MURDERED to score cheap points.

He does, however, have the right to his opinions, as well over 100,000 of our citizens have DIED defending that right.


----------



## Franko (27 Feb 2009)

I hope his uncle reads that piece and gives his nephew a smack in the head.

Revisionist at best...pretty much tripe.

Maybe I should look his uncle up...       

Regards


----------



## deh (27 Feb 2009)

So are we at the point where we just laugh at these idiots and carry on?  I'll go first.

Hahahaha, ha hahahahaha hahah haha ha.  No.


----------



## agenteagle (27 Feb 2009)

I hate the fact that those who are not willing to fight for those that can't defend themselves (Afhgan girls who are beaten if they go to school) from cowards (taliban) make comments like this artilce.

I currently live in Kentucky USA and the troops in my state are deployeed more then any other state. I have many friends in the USA Army that have been to Iraq and Afghanistian a number of times and not one tells me they would not go again or do they worry about getting killed. Yes they realize that it is dangerous and they might die but to them it is worth it to serve their country and help those that ca't defend themselves. 

If you go to youtube and put in the taliban and watch some of video about them. It will make you sick. I have my second child due March 23 and since the US has health care through employers I must wait till then before I can join the CF. As soon as my son is born my family and I are moving back to Canada and I'm joining the Canadian Army God willing. I actually hope we stay in Afghanistan so I can get deployed there. Will  I be afraid I might get hit with and IED? Maybe yes but I willing to sacrife my life if I have to. People who are in or people like myself have considered the possiblity of death and chose to join anyways. I have 2 uncles now retired from the Canadian Air Force and when I ask about what was the best time in their 20+ year careers one says Bosnia the other Desert Storm go figure.

Yes I think the ucle would smack him in the head or do worse. I will disown any family member who says something like this. 

I am thanksful for all members past and present of the CF. My God be with you


----------



## jp86 (27 Feb 2009)

Aww, ease up, guys.  It looks like Brennan Cruse is around 10 or 11 years old.  The kid is worried about his uncle.  Let's not get too worked up about it.


----------



## GDawg (27 Feb 2009)

jp86 said:
			
		

> Aww, ease up, guys.  It looks like Brennan Cruse is around 10 or 11 years old.  The kid is worried about his uncle.  Let's not get too worked up about it.



That is what I suspected/hoped. I bet the kids mind will change when his uncle comes home. My niece was concerned/critical of the mission when I was over but now that I am back its totally off the radar screen.


----------



## Good2Golf (27 Feb 2009)

My question is how did Brennan (3 or 4 years old at the time) formulate the idea that the 3VP Battle Group going into Afghanistan in 2002 was part of a peacekeeping mission?   ???


----------



## chris_log (27 Feb 2009)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> My question is how did Brennan (3 or 4 years old at the time) formulate the idea that the 3VP Battle Group going into Afghanistan in 2002 was part of a peacekeeping mission?   ???



Oh why a newspaper is publishing articles written by children and not ensuring readers are aware of the age of the writer. I'm sure this will be passed off as yet another 'example' of 'disapproval of the war' without realising that it was written by a child with even less SA about the world around him (and compared to your average Canadian, it drops into the negatives).


----------



## HollywoodHitman (27 Feb 2009)

I sure love how people who disagree with the politics behind the missions always feel the have the right to speak for the poor soldier who doesnt want to be there or don't know why they're fighting. 

Whatever. I doubt this young person formulated these ideas on his own; his parents likely heavily influenced his version of history and his misconceived understanding of our overall mission. Sometimes people will do anything to get their 15 minutes of fame.


----------



## 40below (28 Feb 2009)

I had to read it twice to figure out that it wasn't written from the field by a Canadian soldier, as the title would suggest. Yeah, a little context in the form of a preface and a lot of editing is needed.


----------



## JimMorrison19 (28 Feb 2009)

For some reason it reminds me of a time I was informed that there was no need for anyone to have a military because there were no aliens invading from space...


----------



## reccecrewman (1 Mar 2009)

You can say it needs alot of editing all you want...... I think it is an incredibly eloquent piece to be written by a 10 or 11 year old. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with it, but I give credit to such a young lad for being able to put together such a well written piece. Now it begs the question..... is it written by an elder and passed off as his thoughts and opinions? Curious to know. And if it is the lads own piece.... very impressive that such a young man could even have such a well versed opinion. My .02 anyhow.


----------



## Lil_T (1 Mar 2009)

It's a little _too_ eloquent for a 10-11 year old.  Especially one who's gone through reading recovery.  My opinion; someone else wrote that and smacked the kids name on it.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Mar 2009)

RC, it certainly gives one pause for thought; not that there aren't children out there who are rather eloquent for their age.  Brennan is the son of an elementary school teacher, so it stands to reason that he could have developed relatively good grammar and sentence structure since Canada deployed initially to Afghanistan on that "peacekeeping" mission...can't help but think of those science fair projects, however, where the kid stands there pretty much unable to describe how he or she built it.


----------



## Cleared Hot (1 Mar 2009)

Alright, I admit it, while I certainly didn't think it was perfect, I definitely didn't see it coming that it was written by a kid.  My wife is a teacher and has been going on for some time about the virtues of Reading Recovery which only about one or two kids have access to in each class.  That's the real story here - how well the program works and how it should be available to more kids  (although that is not a topic for this site).  In any case, she is thinking of showing some of here colleagues this thread and how this kid previously "at risk" was able to do well enough to spark a reaction from us.  Then again, it really isn't that hard to get a reaction from members of this site.


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Mar 2009)

A post at _The Torch_:

AfPak: What the US troop increase means/Pak success? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/afpak-what-us-troop-increase-meanspak.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Mar 2009)

What's that supposed to mean?     ;D


----------



## reccecrewman (1 Mar 2009)

Well, upon learning that it was authored by a 10 year old, I was rather stunned. How can such a young lad have such well written views on the war in Afghanistan? Hence my initial post on this thread expressing concern for if the true author is using this youth as a nom de plume....... I am leaning towards that notion. The piece is just too well written to have come from such a young man..... at the same time, I could be wrong and this fellow could be a child prodigy with writing.....


----------



## reccecrewman (1 Mar 2009)

Now after reading a piece by Brennan Cruse from the link on the first page of this thread, I'm now at 95% he didn't author this piece on Afghanistan. Take a read of his story on the joy of discovering reading and you can tell the difference is grammer, scentence structure and punctuation.....


----------



## geo (1 Mar 2009)

...there may be a ghost writer OR a Brennan Cruse Sr lurking in the background


----------



## R. Jorgensen (1 Mar 2009)

The Kid probably sat infront of someone from the Associated Press or something and just said "My uncle is over there.... and everyday we wonder if he'll live to see the next." Then, Mr/Mrs. Associated Press adds in all kinds of BS that they usually do to attract attention.



> ...a peacekeeping mission.


  

It's funny seeing veterans and current CF members cringe when they hear the Media call them and their missions Peacekeepers/Peacekeeping when they're not.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Mar 2009)

Latest PM statement on mission, from the _Globe & Mail_:


> ....Asked if he would reject such a request from America's new president, Barack Obama, who has just ordered more than 17,000 additional U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan and has vowed to defeat the insurgency, Mr. Harper ducked the question, responding instead by saying: "If President Obama were to ask me that question, I would have a question back for him. And that question would be: 'What is your plan to leave Afghanistan to the Afghans.' " Mr. Harper said the paramount issue for Canadians was not "whether we stay or whether we go," but rather "are we being successful?"....


----------



## Bomber (2 Mar 2009)

I really don't think that this kid wrote this.  I figure someone put the name into google, and that was the first article to pop up.  This sounds like someone from the Peace front or anti war movement.  Anyone with kids 10-11 should be able to tell you tha tthis is not something that concerns them, nor is it somehting they would ever write about.

Read the article on the kid, he is happy he can read so he can view Ebay to look for coins for his collection.  He doesn't denounce the application of force in far off places.


----------



## geo (2 Mar 2009)

Are we being successful?

Umm... what have we done to make the mission(s) successful ?
excluding those great photo op eventsL How effective have CIDA & our reconstruction projects been...


----------



## armyvern (2 Mar 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Are we being successful?
> 
> Umm... what have we done to make the mission(s) successful ?
> excluding those great photo op eventsL How effective have CIDA & our reconstruction projects been...



I'm not a blonde, but you're making me feel like one.


----------



## geo (2 Mar 2009)

T'was a rhetorical question... more aimed at the very politicians that asked the question.

(Vern - you're a copper top - definitively not a blonde)


----------



## observor 69 (2 Mar 2009)

Just got through reading Fiasco and The Gamble by Thomas E.Ricks.
Both great books, and recognized as so by American military leaders, that speak to the mistakes the US Bush administration made by going into Iraq and their post "victory" plan or lack of.
Ricks details how their was a lack of a strategic goal, lots of tactical effort but without a clear overall strategic objective the best effort and sacrifice at the lower officer and NCM level was just marking time. 
The Obama administration appears to have learned this lesson. Re-evaluating the Afghanistan mission, seeing the big picture, Pakistan, diplomacy and the military all as necessary parts to reach a clearly defined mission objective.


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Mar 2009)

Three headlines March 2:

NATO can't defeat Afghan insurgency, PM says
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/594902

Canada, allies will never defeat Taliban, PM says
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090301.wPOLharperafghan0301/BNStory/International/

Afghan insurgency will never be defeated: Harper
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/fp/Afghan+insurgency+will+never+defeated+Harper/1342421/story.html

Harper really did, for reasons I don't understand, accentuate the negative.  And then he put it all on the US (and everyone blamed Bush for being unilateral!):



> The United States must come up with a viable Afghan exit strategy before asking Canada to rethink its plan to pull out of the country in 2011, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says. [_Star_ story]



In fact though what Harper said is essentially the same as Obama (_Globe_ story):



> Although Mr. Obama has made clear that he regards military success as only one dimension of eventual success in Afghanistan, he has never suggested defeating the insurgency can't be done. Rather he has exhorted allies to do more militarily.
> 
> “We must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan,” Mr. Obama said during his major foreign-policy speech in Berlin during the election campaign. “The Afghan people need our troops and your troops, our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda.”
> 
> ...



It's the bloody emphasis.  Hardly the way to keep up support for the mission here.  Maybe Harper is playing some deep strategic Canadian political game, but it beats me.

And he seems to be using "we" to refer only to foreign forces.  Surely the Afghan gov't forces are also part of the "we"--and if large enough and capable enough can eventually contain and roll back the Taliban (if not completely "defeat" them).  The exit strategy (along with strengthening that gov't generally), in which military victory as such is irrelevant.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo (2 Mar 2009)

I think that someone should shoot the PMs speach writer...

Realy and truly screws / skews how the public will see justification for sending our troops into harms way.  Will also make our troops think twice about why we are going to Afghanistan every 12 to 24 months.


----------



## leroi (2 Mar 2009)

Not an encouraging 21 page "fragility" report from Carleton U:

March 1, 2009

Country Indicators for Foreign Policy

Fragile States Country Report No. 20 for Afghanistan

http://www.carleton.ca/cifp/app/serve.php/1208.pdf


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Mar 2009)

My response, in the online _Barrie Examiner_:

Afghanistan Facts 
http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1458541



> Dear Editor,
> 
> Brennan Cruse has a very thin grip on recent history ("Life as a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan", Feb. 27). He claims that after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington that "the president of the United States launched an invasion of Afghanistan". But there was no "invasion" of Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Mar 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Realy and truly screws / skews how the public will see justification for sending our troops into harms way.  Will also make our troops think twice about why we are going to Afghanistan every 12 to 24 months.



Well _someone_ should be thinking about it.  At this point, it looks more like a two-way live fire exercise with heaps of money being poured into the sand.  Someone needs to call "End Ex" at some point.  Since the US is going to be the biggest dog in the park, and will be wasting spending money on a far grander scale, it should fall to them to come up with a cohesive plan and then bring us on board (starting with governance would be thrilling).  
Lots of players, lots of talent, no game book, no coach.  Something has to give.


----------



## McG (3 Mar 2009)

There’s a lot of buzz on this topic today.


> Afghanistan - When even modest goals are ambitious
> GLOBE AND MAIL
> Pg:  A14
> 03 Mar 2009
> ...





> PM's Afghan comments on target: Manley
> Richard Foot, with Peter O'Neill Files
> The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon)
> Pg: B6
> ...





> Opposition accuses PM of Afghan mission reversal
> Steve Rennie (CP)
> The Calgary Sun
> Pg:  8
> ...



I think anyone suggesting this is new or a reversal of position has not been paying attention.  It has been clearly stated for years now (by government & the military): the military is an essential enabler of the solution, but it is not the solution itself.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Mar 2009)

And here, straight from the respective horses' mouths, was the discussion in the House of Commons yesterday - Bloc asking questions, Liberals asking questions and NDP asking questions.


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Mar 2009)

Here's an excellent post by Brian Platt at his _The Canada-Afghanistan Blog_:

A Short Rant On Harper, Afghanistan, And Pathetic Progressives
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/2009/03/short-rant-on-harper-afghanistan-and.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Mar 2009)

Two more good posts:

1) Damian Penny:

Lowering expectations on Afghanistan
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/012764.html

2) Raphael Alexander:

The Schadenfreude Of The Left On Afghanistan
http://unambig.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/the-schadenfreude-of-the-left-on-afghanistan/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## wack-in-iraq (3 Mar 2009)

''my uncle, Casey, is one of those soldiers over in Afghanistan. Every day for him is like a lottery ticket, you never know what's going to happen, whether you're going to win or lose, live, or die. My uncle's military vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb two weeks ago. His Afghan interpreter was blown to bits, he said it was like raining body parts''

Does this sound like something you would tell your family, especially a 10 year old, while you were still posted overseas? My guess is that this is either made up, or Uncle Casey is a KAFer who is making up stories to spice things up and make his family think he is hardcore. During my tour I never met a single soldier who said their life was like a lottery ticket, or who relayed information like this to their family.

Also, I dont recall hearing about this IED that went off two weeks ago and rained body parts all over the place.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (3 Mar 2009)

wack-in-iraq there are a lot of things we don't hear about so I wouldn't discount that story.  "Need to know" exists for a reason.  

I have, to the surprise of many people I tell the story to, described my IED attack as "awesome" though to the others I was with it might be something they would describe in a different way.

As for the peacekeeping term being used on this mission.  It might be due to the association that anything UN is a peacekeeping tour?  This is a UN mandated mission if I am not mistaken?

"The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was authorized by the UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1386 on December 20, 2001, with a mandate to assist the Afghan Transitional Authority (ATA). "


----------



## wack-in-iraq (3 Mar 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> wack-in-iraq there are a lot of things we don't hear about so I wouldn't discount that story.  "Need to know" exists for a reason.
> 
> I have, to the surprise of many people I tell the story to, described my IED attack as "awesome" though to the others I was with it might be something they would describe in a different way.



Usually if an IED goes off and a terp is killed and Canadians are injured it will make the news. 

As for you describing your IED attacks as awesome... this makes me question you ever having encountered one.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (3 Mar 2009)

Yeah.  Thanks.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/awesome

Go learn a bit then come back and challenge my statement having just reinforced it with your ignorance.


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Mar 2009)

And from Terry Glavin (he's all over the radio):

A Hundred Flowers Bloom, A Hundred Schools Of Thought Contend
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/03/hundred-flowers-bloom-hundred-schools.html

He really lets it out in the final three paras.

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Mar 2009)

And Paul at _Celestial Junk_:

Bashing Harper
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2009/03/bashing-harper.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Mar 2009)

A _Torch_ post:

Canadian funding for Afghan elections--ignored 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/candian-funding-for-afghan-elections.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (5 Mar 2009)

It is unfortunate that some people instantly interpret & preach upon the conception that “military ≠ the solution” is the same as “military ≠ part of the solution.”


> On this war, the President should listen to the PM
> Lawrence Martin
> Globe & Mail
> 05 March 209
> ...



Fortunately, others remember and are reminding that the military is still a vital part of the solution.  A shot term surge, to clamp-down on the insurgents, deter aggression, and provide a period of increased security may pay significantly by allowing accelerated political & reconstruction activities to move forward.



> *THE AFGHAN MISSION*
> Harper's right: We won't win just by staying There is no conventional victory in non-conventional warfare. Our task is to make the insurgents' influence irrelevant
> Lewis MacKenzi
> Globe & Mail
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Mar 2009)

From Terry Glavin, on the Canadian media and Afstan:

All The News That Fits What We Want You To Think, We Print
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/03/all-news-that-fits-what-we-want-you-to.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Mar 2009)

From Norman Spector:

TODAY'S DISHONESTY
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/DISHONEST.htm



> _Vow to Afghanistan at risk_ (Star)
> http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/597463
> 
> Canada will fall short of an agreement it signed with the Afghan government if it fails to "eliminate" the insurgency – a goal Prime Minister Stephen Harper now says is likely unattainable….
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Franko (8 Mar 2009)

wack-in-iraq said:
			
		

> Usually if an IED goes off and a terp is killed and Canadians are injured it will make the news.
> 
> As for you describing your IED attacks as awesome... this makes me question you ever having encountered one.



There are some on this board that have been blown up, Bzzz being one of them. I was close enough to 2 during this tour to speak my mind about it.

Before you open yer yick from the safety back in North America do a bit of research into what you are talking about.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## leroi (8 Mar 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> My response, in the online _Barrie Examiner_:
> 
> Afghanistan Facts
> http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1458541
> ...



Mark, brilliant letter.  It takes a lot of energy keeping up with some of the myths in the press these days.  You very clearly set the record straight for many Canadians.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Mar 2009)

leroi: Thanks.  Amazing how the real course of events less than a decade old--and all on television--are either forgotten or misrepresented.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Mar 2009)

An excellent piece by Major-General (ret'd) Terry Liston, formerly the head of plans and operations for the CF (usual copyright disclaimer):

Harper spoke the truth
http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=1360544



> As the bodies of three more Canadian soldiers arrive back home, Prime Minister Harper's statement on CNN that the Taliban in Afghanistan cannot be defeated have generated outrage among Canadians of all political stripes. By contrast, Canadian soldiers patrolling the Pashtun grape fields and compounds may for the first time be sensing that their government finally understands the situation in Afghanistan.
> 
> Their war is not combat against a conventional army. They know that they cannot chase down and kill every Pashtun Taliban rebel in the country, which is larger than Manitoba. And there are even more in Pakistan. They know that for every Pashtun that is killed by NATO forces, another 10 young men are sent from his tribe to avenge him.
> 
> ...



As for "political reconciliation", the new American president is also looking beyond "winning" militarily:

Obama Ponders Outreach to Elements of the Taliban
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/politics/08obama.html?ref=todayspaper

One wonders when the prime minister will get credit from our journalists and opposition parties for thinking broadly, like the president. Just kidding.

And President Karzai agrees with President Obama:

Afghan leader Karzai backs Obama's call on Taliban
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090308/n_top_news/cnews_us_afghan_karzai_obama

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters (8 Mar 2009)

Only one of many myths being perpetuated in the media and general public - if something is repeated enough times it will be regarded as the truth...


Top ten misconceptions about Canada in Afghanistan (IMO anyway):

10 - We invaded the country after 9/11 
9 - Our soldiers are forced to go there against their will, or, they are all mercs/psychos/social outcasts
8 - Politicians would have ended the 'unrest' with the Taliban without military involvement
7 - The military does nothing to help the local people
6 - The violence would end if we just left
5 - Humanitarian aid orgs were doing their work much better without military protection
4 - The local government is controlled by our military
3 - The Conservative government sent us there
2 - We are there to protect the interest of US oil companies
1 - Its a peacekeeping mission


----------



## leroi (8 Mar 2009)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Only one of many myths being perpetuated in the media and general public - if something is repeated enough times it will be regarded as the truth...
> 
> 
> Top ten misconceptions about Canada in Afghanistan (IMO anyway):
> ...



Greymatters, good list.

Here's another myth that I've heard a lot: "the people of Afghanistan don't want us (Canada as military/as aid/ as whatever) there. "

This is pure unadulterated BS that's being spun by the media. In fact, the people of Afghanistan are terrified of us leaving. 

On March 5th at a fundraising breakfast, I listened to author/journalist Sally Armstrong speak passionately for over one hour about Afghanistan and she very cleary stated that the people of Afghanistan can't understand the mentality of  the "pull the troops out now" Canadian peace activists and she said, when the Afghans hear about this wierd Canadian phenomena, it leads them to believe they have no hope and that the world's gone stark raving mad!!

Sally's spent about 16 years working with women and children in Afghanistan.  In her book "Bitter Roots, Tender Shoots: the Uncertain fate of Afghanistan Women," she says, women and girls are better off now than they were under Taliban rule and that each year their situation is improving marginally. "

Yet, if I open a certain Toronto newspaper tomorrow, I'm sure to see the opposite being reported.


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Mar 2009)

A former CIA officers highights the value of the "small footprint" special forces can offer:

In Afghanistan, Less Can Be More 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/opinion/10keller.html



> AS President Obama moves to ramp up the United States’ presence in Afghanistan, he might benefit from the lessons learned by one of the C.I.A.’s legends of covert operations, Bill Lair. Mr. Lair ran the C.I.A.’s covert action in the 1960s in Laos, which at its height included 30,000 Hmong tribesmen battling Communist insurgents.
> 
> I met Bill Lair when he came to the C.I.A.’s training center in Virginia in 2000 to speak at the graduation ceremony for my class of trainees. His agency career had started in the 1950s in Thailand, where he trained an elite force called the Police Aerial Reinforcement Unit. By the early ’60s, Mr. Lair was in neighboring Laos, trying to build an anti-Communist resistance. Corruption was endemic, poppy cultivation was widespread and the poorly educated Hmong tribesmen of northern Laos were barely out of the Stone Age. Yet Mr. Lair and his unit quickly taught the Hmong to resist the Communist tide using guerrilla tactics suited to their terrain and temperament.
> 
> ...



More on training generally:
http://www.cstc-a.com/mission/CSTC-AFactSheet.html



> ...Under CSTC-A’s [Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan] operational control is Task Force Phoenix, with military strength of more than 6,000, responsible for training, mentoring and advising the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police.



The CF's role [links in original]:
http://www.comfec-cefcom.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/ops/archer/index-eng.asp



> *Operation ARCHER*
> 
> Since July 2005, Canada’s participation in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM
> http://www.centcom.mil/en/topics/significant-operations/operation-enduring-freedom/
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (11 Mar 2009)

Yes, the Afghan mission is 'failing' and, yes, the rituals continue

 JEFFREY SIMPSON 

 Globe and Mail, March 11, 2009 

Every Canadian death in Afghanistan is a tragedy followed by a ritual.

A bomb explodes, or some other means of death carries a soldier to the grave. The body is returned to Canada in a flag-draped coffin. Comrades salute. Families grieve.

We cannot imagine their loss. Reporters dwell yet again on the bravery of the departed and offer a few details of their curtailed lives. The Prime Minister's Office issues a statement of regret. Clichés abound, for what new can be said?

Truth, which a wag once said is so precious in war that it must be protected by a bodyguard of lies, is too painful to bear: They died, as will many more, in an ill-defined mission that defied all the rules of counterinsurgency, sent by an enthusiastic general who has curiously become a kind of media hero, and by gullible politicians who did not ask the right questions, did not know the country, the nature of the war, the precise aims, the equipment required to fight it, and how to define success.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says a military victory is not possible in Afghanistan and, of course, he is right. It took a long time for this elementary truth to be spoken. As in everything political, truth will always attract as much, if not more, criticism as illusion.

It will always be one of those "might have beens" if the Americans, instead of launching a costly diversion into Iraq, had focused - with their NATO partners - on Afghanistan after the Taliban were bombed out of the country.

For the Americans, Afghanistan remained a sideshow and, for NATO, a mission that was difficult to organize and execute. Now, years after the first deployments of Canadians to Kandahar, and NATO and U.S. troops elsewhere, the mission is a "mess," according to U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says Afghanistan is a narco-state. Just about everyone has lost confidence in Afghan President Hamid Karzai, otherwise known as the Mayor of Kabul. Dennis Blair, director of U.S. national intelligence, says Mr. Karzai's feeble, corrupt government "erodes its popular legitimacy and increases the influence of local warlords and the Taliban."

The U.S. military agrees that the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. Even reticent Canadian generals have dropped their bullish, occasionally bombastic, talk. Reports from think tanks everywhere say the situation is worsening.

Afghans think so, too. A massive survey of public opinion there recently found "a clear trend toward greater pessimism over the last two years," with the most pessimism in the southern and southeastern parts of the country, where the Canadians (and others) are located. In 2006, 54 per cent of respondents said they were more prosperous than under the Taliban; today, only 36 per cent say they are more prosperous than under the Taliban.

Afghanistan's interior ministry lists a "high" threat level in 11 provinces (out of 34), a somewhat more upbeat estimate than one offered a few months ago by U.S. agencies.

The University of Ottawa's Roland Paris, arguably Canada's steadiest hand in observing Afghanistan, wrote last month: "There is a growing sentiment among watchers of this mission - and in policy circles in Washington and elsewhere - that the international operation in Afghanistan, in its current form, is failing."

Note the words "in its current form." Essentially, what Canada and the rest of NATO have been doing is more "current form," maybe with somewhat different equipment, with the benefit of lessons learned, with a few more resources but with few results in the troubled parts of Afghanistan.

The drug economy fuels the insurgency; the government's corruption continues unabated; the border with Pakistan remains porous; Pakistan is unable and unwilling to control its militants; NATO dreams of a strong central government in a country that has never had one. Most, if not all, of the rules of counterinsurgency are being broken. The expenditure of more treasure, human and monetary, beckons.

Is it any wonder that, by common account, this mission is "failing," that the families of those fallen and yet to fall receive cold comfort from sacrifice, that we are trapped in a situation from which no escape beckons, and that the rituals will continue?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090310.wcosimp11/BNStory/specialComment/home


----------



## GAP (11 Mar 2009)

The mission *may* not succeed the way it was envisioned and persecuted......does that make it wrong.

Maybe the original vision of happy people wandering through colorful markets, all happy and gay under a democratic government isn't quite what should have been thought of, but that is what is marketed......

Maybe the military approach has been fractured by too many competing mandates and caveates by too many countries who want to be there only to be able to say they contributed. If it's going to be an American Operation (which Enduring Freedom is), then the US should just do its' thing, tell the others they are welcome to help, but don't expect the majority of the forces to kowtow to some politically correct
lesson plan.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Mar 2009)

GAP there sure are a lot of Armchair Generals aren't there? :rage:

Yet not one of them dares to set foot where angels fear to tread. Nor do they seem to have any solutions but to whine and complain about whatever they don't like.


----------



## GAP (11 Mar 2009)

I am just tired of the MSM, et al, with the "I told you so in....(insert date)", but yeah....lotsa Armchair Generals.....


----------



## observor 69 (11 Mar 2009)

Much of Mr.Simpson's comments are based on his reading of this book by Thomas Ricks

http://forums.air-force.ca/forums/threads/84504/post-819598.html#msg819598

Mr.Ricks has spent a lot of time in Iraq over the years and spoken to all the senior players military and political.

Petraeus is now commander of Central Command and it is apparent by the announcements of the Obama administration that they are being advised on Afghanistan by Petraeus.


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Mar 2009)

Afghan ambassadors speak out; I must say I have considerable sympathy with what they're saying:

1) Omar Samad, ambassador to Canada:

Afghan envoy pleads with West to stay the course
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1362416



> As he warned the West against giving up on his country "halfway," Afghanistan's envoy to Canada said Friday [March 6] he disagreed with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's suggestion the Taliban insurgency cannot be defeated.
> 
> "We firmly believe that this insurgency can be defeated," Ambassador Omar Samad told Canwest News Service. "We have to do it together at this point. At a certain point, when the Afghan military is strong enough, we will have to shoulder the responsibility." [Note: the ambassador is saying that the eventual "defeat" of the Taliban--which means ensuring they are in no position to seize power again--will in the end have to be done by the Afghans, not foreign troops. That essentially is what the prime minister said
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090301/harper_afghanistan_090301/20090301?hub=TopStories&s_name=
> ...



2) Said T. Jawad, ambassador to the US:

Afghan Envoy Assails Western Allies as Halfhearted, Defeatist
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031104232.html



> Afghanistan's ambassador to the United States attacked Western governments fighting in and providing billions in aid to his country, saying that those who claim the international community is not winning the war against extremists there "should know that they never fully tried."
> 
> "We never asked to be the 51st state," Ambassador Said T. Jawad said, a reference to a suggestion last month by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) that the United States should concentrate on "realistic goals" and its "original mission" of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Mar 2009)

A Torch post:

An American strategy for AfPak 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/american-strategy-for-afpak.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Mar 2009)

1) Former CDS Gen. (ret'd) Rick Hillier nudges Canadian politicians:

Afghanistan won't be stable by Canadian deadline, general says 
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2009/03/13/8738561.html



> The job of bringing stability to Afghanistan won't be finished in 2011 when Canada is scheduled to withdraw its troops, one of the country's best-known generals said in London today.
> 
> Continued international support well beyond that date will be required to give Afghanis a chance to rebuild their country, said Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of the Canadian Forces from 2005 and 2008.
> 
> ...



2) The _Globe and Mail's_ Christie Blatchford blasts her _Globe_ colleague Geoffrey Simpson, and the _Toronto Star's_ James Travers, Haroon Siddiqui and Thomas Walkom:

In Afghanistan, more than the mission that's failing
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090314.wblatch14/BNStory/Afghanistan/



> It took “a long time for this elementary truth to be spoken,” my colleague Jeffrey Simpson wrote this week under a headline, “Yes, the Afghan mission is ‘failing' and, yes, the rituals continue.”
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090310.wcosimp11/BNStory/Afghanistan/
> 
> He was quoting, with approval and that weary wisdom common to those who live in Central Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's recent remarks on CNN to the effect that military victory isn't possible in Afghanistan.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Mar 2009)

I just made the mistake of reading the comments about CB's column. Too bad it is too early to begin drinking, heavily, very heavily!


----------



## leroi (14 Mar 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I just made the mistake of reading the comments about CB's column. Too bad it is too early to begin drinking, heavily, very heavily!



Thanks for the warning Old Sweat; I'll read it later after drinking a few cups of herbal calming tea.


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Mar 2009)

That the _Glop and Pail_ permits the comments it does is a terrible indication of the state of the paper, trying to remain, er, "relevant".  Watch Editor-in-Chief Steady Eddy Greenspon on TVO's _The Agenda_, March 13, "The State of Newspapers":
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=7&bpn=779453&ts=2009-03-13%2020:00:35.0

Then consider his inflated aspirations for the paper (and his inflated ego):
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009349.html
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008845.html
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006368.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Mar 2009)

A _Torch_ post (with lots of background links and a video of US Brig.-Gen. John Nicholson):

US really starting to shape things in ISAF Regional Command South 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/us-really-starting-to-shape-things-in.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Mar 2009)

From Terry Glavin, a post on what some people in Pakistan think of the Taliban _et al_.:

"All those who want a dialogue with the Taliban should go to hell." 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/03/all-those-who-want-dialogue-with.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Mar 2009)

AfPak and Obama Jack--Terry Glavin assesses the NDP leader's new, improved policy for the region:

A Misjudgment Of Historic Proportions II: "We've Come A Long Way..."
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/03/misjudgment-of-historic-proportions-ii.html



> I will go easy here on New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton, even as he makes yet another "I told you so" attempt,
> http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/03/16/jack-layton-what-canada-should-really-be-doing-in-afghanistan.aspx
> as brazen as last time,
> http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/10/jack-layton-and-afghanistan-latest.html
> ...



I'm not sure I ever want Mr Glavin to "go easy" on me.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (17 Mar 2009)

In Afghanistan, more than the mission that's failing
 CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD From Saturday's Globe and Mail March 14, 2009 at 1:00 AM EDT Article Link

It took “a long time for this elementary truth to be spoken,” my colleague Jeffrey Simpson wrote this week under a headline, “Yes, the Afghan mission is ‘failing' and, yes, the rituals continue.”

He was quoting, with approval and that weary wisdom common to those who live in Central Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's recent remarks on CNN to the effect that military victory isn't possible in Afghanistan.

“Now pouring out of Stephen Harper,” wrote James Travers of the Toronto Star on the same subject, “is the smoke that the Taliban can't be beaten.” His colleague, Haroon Siddiqui, said, “the Prime Minister says NATO cannot win, period. So what are we doing there?” The previous week, Mr. Travers's and Mr. Siddiqui's colleague, Thomas Walkom, said of the PM's acknowledgment, “I find this admission breathtaking … if the Taliban can't be beaten, what are Canadian troops doing in Afghanistan? If the Taliban can't be beaten, why are our soldiers still dying?”

Collectively, the pundits were surprised, if modestly pleased, that the Canadian PM had finally smartened up and was now seeing the war as they do, to quote Mr. Simpson, as “an ill-defined mission that defied all the rules of counterinsurgency,” led by “an enthusiastic general [this would be the former Canadian Forces' boss, Rick Hillier]” who bamboozled both press and politicians.
More on link


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Mar 2009)

"_Reductio ad Vietnam_"--a column in the _Wall St. Journal_:

Afghanistan and the Left
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123725331061050371.html#mod=djemEditorialPage



> It was probably inevitable that the American left would turn sharply against the war in Afghanistan the moment it was politically opportune. Still, the speed with which it has done so has been breathtaking.
> 
> Time was when the received bipartisan and trans-Atlantic wisdom about Afghanistan was that it was the necessary war, the good war, the no-choice-but-to-fight and can't-afford-to-lose war, and that not least of everything that made the invasion and occupation of Iraq such arrant folly was that it distracted us from "finishing the job" in the place where the attacks of 9/11 were conceived and planned.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Mar 2009)

Advice from one who has commanded in Afstan (usual copyright disclaimer):

Rethink the Afghanistan surge
A US general explains why the Iraq model doesn't apply.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0317/p09s01-coop.html



> Honolulu - With great expectations on their shoulders, the first US troops of a 17,000-strong surge are headed to Afghanistan.
> 
> But to do what?
> 
> ...



More from another American familiar with the country:

Getting It Right in Afghanistan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/16/AR2009031602384.html?sid=ST2009031602402


> ...
> _Thomas A. Schweich, a visiting professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, was a special ambassador to Afghanistan during the Bush administration._



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Mar 2009)

ADM Olson is high-speed, low-drag, no-sparks.  Current CDR USSOCOM, and very switched on.  He's got a CV a mile long, but more importantly, it's backed up with practical experience and a very strong appreciation of lessons learned, especially during his time in AFG as US CDR CFC-A in 04-05.


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Mar 2009)

Actually it's this fellow ;D:
http://www.1id.army.mil/bigredone/commandteam/former/ADC/Olson,%20Eric%20T.htm



> Major General Eric T. Olson
> Special Assistant to the Commanding General
> United States Army Pacific
> Fort Shafter, Hawaii
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Mar 2009)

Oops, my bad...what are the odds that there are two "Eric T. Olson" flag officers in the US Armed Services?    :-[


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Mar 2009)

Slim to none, I should think  :-*.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (17 Mar 2009)

I still liked the article.  

I see everything on this topic filtered through Thomas Ricks second book on Iraq:

The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008

http://www.amazon.com/Gamble-Petraeus-American-Adventure-2006-2008/dp/1594201978/ref=pd_sim_b_1


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Mar 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Slim to none, I should think  :-*.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Yup, as it turns out, there are two flag officers by the exact same name (although not sure about MG Olson's middle name - Adm Olson is "Thor")!

Admiral Eric T. Olson. and 
Major General Eric T. Olson

_*edited for speeling the Genreal rong...sigh*_


----------



## KevinB (18 Mar 2009)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Major Genreal Eric T. Olson



Is Major Genreal higher or lower than a Major General


----------



## GAP (18 Mar 2009)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Is Major Genreal higher or lower than a Major General



Nah....he's just more real....


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Mar 2009)

The Americanization of RC South--Jack Granatstein discusses the implications (usual copyright disclaimer):

The Americans are coming, the Americans are coming - to Afghanistan
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wcoafghan18/BNStory/specialComment/home



> Whatever their views on Canada's mission in Afghanistan, Canadians like to believe that our troops are doing a first-rate job in "Canadahar" and that our allies, especially the Americans, believe this as well. But do the Americans agree with our rosy assessment? Perhaps not, if The Washington Post is to be believed.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031402178.html?sid=ST2009031500691
> 
> A 2,000-word article on Sunday by Post staff writer Rajiv Chandrasekaran hangs on extensive interviews with Lieutenant-Colonel Daniel Hurlbut, commander of the U.S. Army's 2nd Battalion of the 2nd Infantry Regiment that operates under overall Canadian command in Kandahar province, and Brigadier-General John Nicholson, a deputy commander of NATO forces in southern Afghanistan. Neither seems very pleased with the way the war is going.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Mar 2009)

Interview video with Gen. McKiernan/Americanization of the south--the general, commander of both ISAF and the newish separate command United States Forces - Afghanistan, 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/10/afstan-new-us-command-structure.html
is interviewed on the PBS NewsHour, March 17, about the overall situation in AfPak:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/jan-june09/mckiernan_03-17.html

Video here:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/module.html?mod=0&pkg=17032009&seg=3

It's noteworthy (and Lord knows how the segment was edited) that one tends to get the impression that Afstan is now essentially the US versus the enemy (the truth, perhaps?). I heard the general mention ISAF only once.

It's also striking how the American media are approaching a full court press on Afstan, Iraq having rather receded as a focus. The increasing depth and breadth of that coverage is very welcome, especially in the face of the remarkably shallow coverage, on the whole, by the Canadian media (see this post of Babbling Brooks). 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-we-laugh-when-someone-talks-about.html
One supposes the American media have rather more of the _esprit de sérieux_ than their "Gotcha!" Canadian cousins; plus a whole lot more money (at least so far) to fund reporting.

Another striking--and refreshing--thing: the much greater latitude of public expression members of the US armed services appear to have compared to their Canadian counterparts.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Mar 2009)

Two posts at _The Torch_:

Surging the Afghan forces and US civilians 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/surging-afghan-forces-and-us-civilians.html

AfPak: Two visions for the future US strategy 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/afpak-two-visions-for-future-us.html

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Mar 2009)

Video of BGen Denis Thompson, just returned from the post of commander of Joint Task Force Afghanistan, on CTV's _Power Play_:
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/power-play/thursday-march-19/#clip151868

More at _The Torch_:

Afstan: Letting the CF go public 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/afstan-letting-cf-go-public.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Mar 2009)

AfPak: US strategy to be rolled out--looks like things are ready to move, with the US military getting just about what they wanted last year (by Jim Hoagland):

Behind the Afghan Strategy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032002312.html



> You will hear a lot about President Obama putting his stamp on the war in Afghanistan over the next two weeks. But you won't hear the whole story. Smart generals and smart ambassadors don't upstage the boss, and Gen. David Petraeus and diplomat Richard Holbrooke are as smart as they come.
> 
> You will hardly see their fingerprints, even though the shape -- and the fate -- of the new Afghanistan strategy will depend greatly on the work and ideas of these two skilled policy operatives. Similar in drive and vision, they bring contrasting histories of involvement in American wars to their current assignments, and history is everything in Afghanistan, the land known as the graveyard of empires.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (23 Mar 2009)

US will appoint Afghan 'prime minister' to bypass Hamid Karzai   
Julian Borger in Brussels and Ewen MacAskill in Washington guardian.co.uk, Sunday 22 March 2009 20.15 GMT 
Article Link

The US and its European allies are ­preparing to plant a high-profile figure in the heart of the Kabul government in a direct challenge to the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, the Guardian has learned.

The creation of a new chief executive or prime ministerial role is aimed at bypassing Karzai. In a further dilution of his power, it is proposed that money be diverted from the Kabul government to the provinces. Many US and European officials have become disillusioned with the extent of the corruption and incompetence in the Karzai government, but most now believe there are no credible alternatives, and predict the Afghan president will win re-election in August.

A revised role for Karzai has emerged from the White House review of Afghanistan and Pakistan ordered by Barack Obama when he became president. It isto be unveiled at a special conference on Afghanistan at The Hague on March 31.

As well as watering down Karzai's personal authority by installing a senior official at the president's side capable of playing a more efficient executive role, the US and Europeans are seeking to channel resources to the provinces rather than to central government in Kabul.

A diplomat with knowledge of the review said: "Karzai is not delivering. If we are going to support his government, it has to be run properly to ensure the levels of corruption decrease, not increase. The levels of corruption are frightening."

Another diplomat said alternatives to Karzai had been explored and discarded: "No one could be sure that someone else would not turn out to be 10 times worse. It is not a great position."

The idea of a more dependable figure working alongside Karzai is one of the proposals to emerge from the White House review, completed last week. Obama, locked away at the presidental retreat Camp David, was due to make a final decision this weekend.

Obama is expected to focus in public on overall strategy rather than the details, and, given its sensitivity, to skate over ­Karzai's new role. The main recommendation is for the Afghanistan objectives to be scaled back, and for Obama to sell the war to the US public as one to ensure the country cannot again be a base for al-Qaida and the Taliban, rather than the more ambitious aim of the Bush administration of trying to create a European-style democracy in Central Asia.
More on link


----------



## McG (23 Mar 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> The main recommendation is for the Afghanistan objectives to be scaled back, and for Obama to sell the war to the US public as one to ensure the country cannot again be a base for al-Qaida and the Taliban ...


And here I was thinking that is what we were doing all along.  Guess this means the US might be ready to throw all its weight into ISAF as opposed to maintaining to seperate parrallel missions in that country.  Maybe?


----------



## tabernac (23 Mar 2009)

I can see the need and the reasons for this, however I can also see the bleeding heart Left using this as ammo against the mission.

I don't see much good coming out of this.


----------



## ARMY_101 (23 Mar 2009)

Why appoint another person to the highest position in the country?  Aren't we just going to divide them into one "side" against the other?


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Mar 2009)

From Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty:


> ...."I don't know what they're talking about," Richard Holbrooke, U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told reporters in Brussels, referring to the report in British newspaper “The Guardian.”
> 
> "It doesn’t reflect any views that I am aware of in the government I work for and it's certainly not a universal NATO plan or anything," he said.
> 
> "Many people, including Afghans themselves, have called for a prime ministerial system, but the system of the government is the one set up by the Afghan constitution," Holbrooke said. "And nobody should be trying to change the constitution, except in accordance with its own provisions. I have no idea what that article was about"....


----------



## McG (24 Mar 2009)

> Timely Afghan advice
> The Toronto Star
> Editorial
> 24 Mar 09
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (24 Mar 2009)

> This agenda comes from seasoned Afghan leaders who are deeply invested in their country's success.


Their "deep investment" is a pretty balanced portfolio, since Abdullah Abdullah lives in Chevy Chase Maryland, and Ali Ahmad Jalali and Ashraf Ghani both live within the District of Columbia.

While potentially more influential over here, it's also a pretty safe place to dictate how others should liberate their country for them.


----------



## observor 69 (24 Mar 2009)

I sense the hand of Gen.Petraus in this idea of building up the local administration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/opinion/24brooks.html?pagewanted=print

March 24, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Combat and Community 
By DAVID BROOKS
Wardak Province, Afghanistan

You drive up to the forward operating base in Wardak Province in an armored Humvee, with the machine-gunner sticking up through the roof and his butt swinging on a little perch just by your head. Outside there’s a scraggly downtown, with ragamuffin Afghan children, almost no old people (the median life expectancy is 45) and dust everywhere. The dust of Afghanistan piles up in front of the storefronts and covers the ruins of the buildings destroyed during the Soviet period, or during the civil war or during some lost conflict from centuries past. 

The Humvee takes the serpentine path through the checkpoint and you pass a double line of soldiers heading out on foot patrol. There’s a soldier that looks from a distance like a child in gear, but it turns out to be a tiny American woman smiling under her armor, pack and rifle, and you think that of all the great powers who’ve humped their way over these mountains, not another one sent out warriors as unlikely or effective as these.

After the checkpoint, there’s a parking lot with great lines of heavy vehicles. For years, the coalition forces fought this war on the cheap, but that’s changing. The U.S. has just increased troop levels tenfold in Wardak. The parking lots are bursting with hulking machinery, the avalanche of metal America brings to a war it takes seriously.

There’s a line of porta-potties and you’re brought into a plywood room. There are about 25 Army Rangers inside, linebacker types with crew cuts, except for a special-ops guy, Major Moses, who is dark-skinned with a thick beard. These men have been through Iraq, and they now have the habits of counterinsurgency warfare deep in their bones in a way they didn’t just a few years ago. 

As they talk, it becomes clear that aside from killing bad guys, they’re also trying to figure out how to reweave Afghan society. 

Before the Soviet invasion in 1979, Afghan towns had three parallel authority structures: the tribal elders, the religious clerics and the government representatives. The Soviets decimated the tribes and the indigenous government. That left only the mullahs, and their sudden unchecked prominence helped explain the rise of the Taliban.

The terror and the fall of the Taliban reduced clerical authority, too. By 2002, when the coalition forces arrived, village society was fractured, social capital decimated. The resulting disorder has been a perfect nesting ground for the insurgents. The insurgents are not popular in Afghanistan, the way they sometimes were in Iraq. But they have money, and young men in the villages talk about “taking a Taliban day” — that is, accepting a few hundred bucks to plant an I.E.D.

Between 2002 and 2005, the coalition and the Afghans were slow to recognize the perils of social fragmentation. The general view was that warlordism and civil war were the biggest threats. Therefore, power should be centralized with the national government. The country should be restored through a strong national government spreading outward. 

That approach has had some success. The Afghan National Army is the country’s most trusted institution. But it’s also had many shortcomings. The national police force is ineffective. The central government has rarely been able to reweave the social fabric at the village level. Nobody’s been able to establish rule of law or end rampant corruption.

So the Afghans and the coalition are adapting. There’s been a shift to supplement central authorities with village authority structures. Under the National Solidarity Project, villages elect Community Development Councils. Western aid agencies give the councils up to $60,000 to do local projects, but it’s not the projects that matter most. It’s the creation of formal community structures. These projects are up and running in 23,000 villages.

Mohammad Halim Fidai, the governor of Wardak Province, and the guys in the plywood room are creating the Afghan Public Protection Program. Under it, villages would no longer depend solely on the national police sent from Kabul. Local committees would hire their own constabulary to guard schools, bridges and neighborhoods. Alongside just 26 national policemen in the area, there will be 250 local men from the A.P.P.P.

The program is controversial. Many feel it will lead to a return to local militias and warlordism. But if Afghanistan is to stabilize, there have to be local authority structures. The culture of conversation and consensus has to be formalized in institutions. These local structures have to be connected upward to the central state. And that’s beginning to happen amidst the armored Humvees and the daily threat of death.

When you put more boots on the ground, you not only augment your army’s firing power, you give it the capacity to experiment. A few years ago, the good guys had only vague ideas about how to win this war. Now they’re much smarter.


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Mar 2009)

President Obama really talks turkey:

Obama: US will stay on offense in Afghanistan



> Nearing completion of a revamped strategy in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama on Tuesday[March 24] said the United States will "stay on the offensive" to dismantle terrorist operations in the country even as it rethinks its goals in trying to end the seven-year-old war.
> 
> The president did not divulge details of his administration's war review, which he said is not yet complete. It is expected to be unveiled as soon as this week.
> 
> ...



Sort of reminds me of a retired chief of the defence staff. I'm not much reminded of our prime minister. 

Ah, for the good old days when there really was an Obama Jack:
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/004571.html


> ...
> "Controlled anger, given what's happened, is an appropriate response," NDP Leader Jack Layton said. "We have a very committed, level-headed head of our armed forces, who isn't afraid to express the passion that underlies the mission that front-line personnel are going to be taking on.
> 
> "A bit of strong language in the circumstances, I don't find that to be wrong."..



And pretty unilateral turkey talk from Richard Holbrooke:

The New American Determination
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,614893,00.html



> Richard Holbrooke, the new US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, wants to explain Obama's policy on Afghanistan to NATO and the EU. He gave the first details at a conference this weekend in Brussels. One thing is certain: The operation will become more American -- and probably bloodier...



Mark 
Otawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Mar 2009)

Interview with our former top civilian at Kandahar--interesting to find this lengthy article in _Spiegel Online_:

'I See a Positive Trend Line'
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,614972,00.html



> Many of the headlines from Afghanistan recently have been negative. But Elissa Golberg, who headed Canadian development efforts in Kandahar for 11 months, remains optimistic. SPIEGEL ONLINE spoke with her about rays of hope and threats to security.
> 
> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Canada has played a major role in Afghanistan, not least on the battlefield. Just last Friday, four Canadian soldiers were killed in two separate incidents. Does Canada still believe the mission in Afghanistan can be successful?
> 
> Elissa Golberg: Obviously we grieve for our colleagues. But we all believe in the mission, which is helping Afghanistan establish a viable and stable country that can deliver basic services to its population. That is the objective. But it's one that takes time and patience...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop (24 Mar 2009)

And her credibility drops to below zero here:

QUESTION:


> SPIEGEL ONLINE: President Hamid Karzai himself comes from Kandahar, and his brother Ahmed Wali plays a very strong role there. But what is that role? There have been many claims that he is a major drug trafficker.



ANSWER:


> Golberg: Well, Ahmed Wali Karzai is the chair of the provincial council in Kandahar, and he is well respected by members of the community. This council is the only elected body in the province, people bring their concerns to it, and the provincial council of Kandahar is probably one of the most functioning provincial councils that exist. Personally, I've never seen anything that ties him to anything other than a desire to deliver services to the province.



Wow.  Some pretty selective interpretation of information going on there, at best.
A good bunch of questions that were dodged with typical fluff and mirrors.  Somebody has a glowing career in the Parliament ahead.


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Mar 2009)

Always metrics:

General says NATO can't measure Afghan war performance
http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2009/03/25/africa/OUKWD-UK-USA-AFGHAN.php



> NATO has no reliable way to assess its performance in the war in Afghanistan even as the United States prepares to announce the results of an Afghan strategy review, the alliance's top commander said on Tuesday.
> 
> U.S. Army General John Craddock, NATO's supreme allied commander Europe, also told a U.S. Senate panel that some NATO members had the capacity to commit more troops to the war but would not do so for political reasons.
> 
> ...



As for strategy:

Obama to unveil Afghanistan strategy on Friday 
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090325/n_top_news/cnews_us_usa_afghan_review

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Mar 2009)

A _Torch_ post:

America's war--and Pakistan's; but is it really Obama's? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/americas-war-and-pakistans.html

Plus the final paragraph of a nice overview piece in the _Atlantic_ magazine by Robert D. Kaplan:

Saving Afghanistan
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903u/saving-afghanistan



> “This is not easy shit,” says one American Army colonel. “But what’s the alternative?” That’s why American Brig. Gen. John Nicholson, Jr. says [more on what he said recently about Regional Command South]
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/afstan-more-on-us-plans-for-isaf.html
> that what is *required is “strategic patience* [emphasis added].” The U. S. military has already been in Afghanistan half as many years as it was in Vietnam, and with troops pulling out of Iraq and talk of a multi-year hard slog ahead here, Afghanistan is on track to becoming America’s longest war. To that end, significant numbers of American officers and civilian contractors will be embedded in Afghan government ministries [remember the SAT?] for years to come, helping to run things. But does the home front have the stomach for it? Our reaction to the fighting about to unfold this summer will speak volumes.



Sound familiar to Canadians?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Mar 2009)

But do we really know President Obama's character and the stuff he’s made of? His position on Afstan during the primaries and campaign--stressing Afstan over Iraq--was mainly political. We’ll soon see how tough he is.  A leader in _The Economist_ (usual copyright disclaimer):

Say you're staying, Mr President
Barack Obama needs to act fast to dispel the idea that he is giving up on his “good war”
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13362871



> WHO would have believed, Barack Obama mused on television the other day, “that the least of my problems would be Iraq?” He should hold on to that thought. Iraq’s problems are far from over. But the fact is that a counter-insurgency campaign that looked almost completely unwinnable less than two years ago is now going well enough for America to begin to withdraw without leaving chaos behind. Now, as the president jets off for a series of meetings with America’s allies in Europe, it is Afghanistan that is starting to look unwinnable—and the Europeans, especially those in NATO (see article),
> http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13376058
> want to know if he will fight on.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (26 Mar 2009)

New York Times 

March 27, 2009
Obama to Set Benchmarks in Fight Against Militants 
By PETER BAKER and THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON — President Obama plans to further bolster American forces in Afghanistan and for the first time set benchmarks for progress in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban there and in Pakistan, the administration told Congressional leaders on Thursday.

In imposing conditions on the Afghans and Pakistanis, Mr. Obama is replicating a strategy used in Iraq two years ago in hopes of justifying a deeper American commitment and prodding the governments in the region to take more responsibility for the political, military and economic missions there.

“The era of the blank check is over,” Mr. Obama told the Congressional leaders at the White House, according to an account of the meeting provided on the condition of anonymity because it was a private session.

The new Obama strategy will send an additional 4,000 troops to train Afghan security forces on top of the 17,000 extra combat and support troops he already ordered to Afghanistan shortly after taking office, according to people who attended the briefing. For now, Mr. Obama has decided not to send more combat troops, although commanders on the ground at one point had requested a total of 30,000 more American troops.

More at link  http://tinyurl.com/clhvch


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Mar 2009)

IMO, and not the most learned at that, is that the politicians have to crap or get off the pot.


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Mar 2009)

Baden Guy: As for trainers, more than this second National Guard brigade already committed?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/afstan-extra-brigade-of-us-trainers-to.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (27 Mar 2009)

> *It's not our war*
> We are there to assist, but the war in Afghanistan will not be won until its public institutions are stabilized
> Nipa Banerjee
> The Ottawa Citizen
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (27 Mar 2009)

Ms. Banerjee's assessment is BANG ON!


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Mar 2009)

Baden Guy: The 4,000 trainers announced today by the president are indeed an addtion to the two National Guard brigades already committed; that's a hell of lot of trainers, esp. as the manoeuvre units also do some mentoring:

4,000 82nd Airborne paratroopers going to Afghanistan to train security forces 
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=61638



> President Barack Obama announced Friday that 4,000 paratroopers with the 82nd Airborne Division will head to Afghanistan this fall to train Afghan security forces.
> 
> “For the first time, this will fully resource our effort to train and support the Afghan Army and Police,” Obama said.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Mar 2009)

A post at _The Torch_:

Obama's war indeed
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/obamas-war-indeed_27.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (27 Mar 2009)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html

Newsmaker: Petraeus and Holbrooke
Margaret Warner interviews U.S. Central Command head Gen. David Petraeus and special envoy Richard Holbrooke on newly unveiled U.S. plans for the Afghan-Pakistan region.

Click on link to access "download" of audio interview.

The approach taken by Holbrooke and Petraeus to Afghanistan, as discussed in this interview, is more important than simply putting in more numbers of personnel.


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Mar 2009)

Baden Guy: Saw most of it, waiting for video to do _Torch_ post.  Can you imagine such a, er, serious, interview on Canadian TV, without a bunch of point scoring being tried by everyone?  One does weep, sometimes.  Please see the end of this post:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/2000-more-british-troops-for-afstan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Mar 2009)

> Newsmaker: Petraeus and Holbrooke



Transcript here:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/jan-june09/afghanpak_03-27.html

Video here:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/module.html?mod=0&pkg=27032009&seg=1

Something worth noticing: with the 4,000 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division, plus two National Guard Brigades, 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/afstan-extra-brigade-of-us-trainers-to.html
the US will have about as many personnel assigned to training alone as the second-largest foreign contingent in the country, the British, now has for all military purposes.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Mar 2009)

More details on what Obama's war will mean for the CF--some serious perspective--and the story does note the usually overlooked Danes--though it misses the Romanians in RC South:
http://english.mapn.ro/cpresa/continuarearhiva.php?id=3010

Obama rolls out his own war on terror 
4,000 troops headed for Afghanistan; president to ask NATO for more
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Obama+rolls+terror/1437954/story.html


> ...
> The Americanization of the war in Afghanistan was inevitable once the conflict in Iraq began to wind down, because NATO countries in Europe -- with the exception of Britain, Denmark and the Dutch -- refused constant demands to send forces to the only places in Afghanistan that really matter: the east and south of the country.
> 
> The increase in activity is already breathtaking.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Mar 2009)

Prime Minister Harper on Afstan--video of interview on CTV's _Question Period_, March 29 (recorded March 28). 
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/ctvs-question-period/march-29-2009/#clip155217

The PM says that President Obama's announced strategy...



> ...I think mirrors the Canadian government's position, frankly mirrors the great work done by John Manley and his counterparts [_sic_], I think it mirrors it just about as closely as it possibly could and we were a couple of years ahead of the curve.



What self-serving tripe. Moreover, since the Manley report was issued just some fourteen months ago, and since the House of Commons' resolution extending our mission until 2011 only passed just over one year ago, we certainly have not been "a couple of years ahead of the curve."

As for 2011, the prime minister was very clear indeed:



> ...we are planning for the end of the military mission at the end of 2011.



So far as I can see from everything he's been saying there is no inclination to change that planning.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Mar 2009)

More--further misleading political spin from Mr Harper. In response to a question about the effect the American troop increase (one doesn't say "surge" in polite company) will have on Canadian operations at Kandahar, he responded:



> ...this is very good news. One of the conditions of the extension of our mission in Kandahar was getting a military partner in Kandahar province. Obviously the Americans are that partner and the Americans, quite frankly, are bringing in far more troops than we had initially believed we needed, or hoped for.



What a load of codswallop. The prime minister is implying that only now are we finally receiving a military "partner" at Kandahar. Somehow he's overlooked the US Army battalion that has been an operational part of the CF's Task Force Kandahar since last August. That unit was the "partner" the Manley panel said was needed.

That a US Army brigade combat team, plus a US Army aviation combat brigade, are to be deployed in addition, largely to the Kandahar region, in fact demonstrates how seriously the Manley panel underestimated the need for additional forces.

Pity the interviewer, Craig Oliver, didn't know enough to bring to the prime minister's attention that the "partner" had already been provided, and that the new troops are something quite different. Typical of our media. Moreover, I can't remember any example of a government minister stating that the 2-2 Ramrods (more here) are that partner. MND MacKay provided an egregious example last November.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/11/afstan-mnd-mackays-miserable-failure-to.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (30 Mar 2009)

> PM: Afghan role will remain deadly
> Kathleen Harris
> Winnipeg Free Press
> 30 Mar 09
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Mar 2009)

Al Qaeda--what the PM says to whom.  From the transcript of the prime minister on Fox News Sunday, March 29:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511369,00.html


> ...
> WALLACE:
> ...
> Prime Minister, does that mean that we're going to have to learn to live with Al Qaeda and the Taliban in that part of the world?
> ...



Funny, I don't recall Mr Harper ever telling a Canadian audience that al Qaeda must be "*eliminated*", or that "*elimination* of any kind of threat" is a goal of his government's policy. In fact, this is what he said in an interview with Canwest News the same day:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/03/29/transcript-sheldon-alberts-interviews-prime-minister-stephen-harper.aspx



> ...You may notice the (Obama) administration is much more clear on eliminating al-Qaida than eliminating the Taliban...



Rather a different emphasis, wouldn't you say? And nothing about his government's interest in "eliminating" al Qaeda. Different strokes for different folks. Hmmm.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Mar 2009)

From a transcript of his 29 Mar 09 interview on FOX News:


> .... we are in Canada ramping up our civilian presence and our civilian commitments in Afghanistan in preparation for the end of the military mission. But we're going to continue to be there and continue to assist with governance and development challenges ....


----------



## PanaEng (30 Mar 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Rather a different emphasis, wouldn't you say? And nothing about his government's interest in "eliminating" al Qaeda. Different strokes for different folks. Hmmm.


So what?
target the message to the audience...
Do you want to undermine Harpers public support? Do you like Iggy better?
I do like Iggy but I don't want a change in Gov yet...

cheers,
Frank


----------



## leroi (31 Mar 2009)

Brigadier-General Dennis Thompson in Canada & speaks to the Globe and Mail on Afghanistan, "the people are the prize." :yellow:

Afghans Caught Between Bleak Options

(Placed here in accordance with the _Fair Dealing _ provision of the _Copyright Act_.)

OMAR EL AKKAD 
March 30, 2009

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090330.wafghan_thompson0330/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

(audio on link)

The former head of the military mission in Kandahar dismissed on Monday the argument that Afghanistan is caught in a downward spiral, even as he said the local population's sense of security is plummeting.

Brigadier-General Denis Thompson met with the Globe and Mail's editorial board Monday morning, part of a two-week Canadian outreach trip that will see the senior soldier speaking at multiple universities, visiting wounded soldiers and meeting with families of soldiers who died during his time in command of the Kandahar mission. Brig-Gen Thompson's nine-month tour ended in February.

While conceding that during his tenure the perception of security dropped among Afghans from about 55 per cent to 30, Brig-Gen Thompson said support for the Taliban is still between 15 and 20 per cent.

“If the people are the prize, they haven't been lost yet,” he said.

Brig.-Gen. Thompson attributed the dropping sense of security to a growing tendency by Taliban fighters to assassinate mid- and low-level Afghan officials, and the soaring rate of improvised explosive devices. But he added that local support for the Taliban remains low because, unlike other militant groups around the world, the Taliban does very little to provide local services.

Still Brig-Gen Thompson painted a grim picture of the choice Afghans face – one between a violent extremist group and a largely ineffectual government.

“The two competing ideas both stink,” he said.

Brig-Gen Thompson's outreach trip comes as U.S. President Barack Obama announced last week that he will send 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan – 4,000 more than expected. The troops, whose focus is expected to be on training much-needed Afghan security forces, will be accompanied by myriad civilian support staff.

Training of local police and military forces is considered one of the most vital keystones of a self-dependent Afghanistan. Brig-Gen Thompson said NATO is making some strides towards legitimizing Afghanistan's largely unorganized police force, including issuing bank cards to officers instead of paying them in cash, so as to minimize skimming by corrupt officials. However he still described the process of local police recruitment as operating on the “Hey You” principle – as in, simply going to a local from the area and saying “Hey you, come join the police force.

Indeed, Brig-Gen Thompson sometimes bordered on contradiction in describing the situation in Afghanistan. He boasted that NATO forces had killed a Taliban deputy shadow governor in Kandahar, but quickly added that describing him as a deputy shadow governor only perpetuates the idea that the Taliban operate a shadow government, which he said isn't the case.

Repeatedly, though, Brig-Gen Thompson returned to the theme of working with the local population, saying locals are the best source of good quality information about the enemy.

“The people are the prize,” he said, “and the insurgents have to live among them.”


----------



## Mosher (31 Mar 2009)

I just read this article and agree that this should be a mandatory read for all Canadians. I understand more so has to why we are there. I find this article very motivating! I am very motivated to become apart of the CF and fight for our country and to help others, and this article made me more so motivated then ever!
Sorry, I just felt a need to express my thoughts on this article.


Edit: I also bookmarked this article and will be making my family read this to understand further what our motive truly is.


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Mar 2009)

Interview with Brig.-Gen. Denis Thompson from CBC "News Sunday", March 29, video at link 

Debriefing the General
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2009/03/032909_2.html



> Brigadier-General Denis Thompson was commander of Canadian and NATO forces in Kandahar province up until last month, and we spoke with him from Kandahar on our show just before Christmas. Thompson joins us in studio to talk about the nine months he spent with the mission.



Via _Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs_:
http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/257-Eng.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Apr 2009)

US to take really serious military action in Pakistan?  Paul Wells of _Maclean's_ magazine is connecting dots--note the reference to Canada; at this point I'd suspect instead subtle US support for another military coup (maybe with some sort of thin civilian cover):

Pakistan: Hair on fire (several internal links at original post)
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/01/pakistan-hair-on-fire/#more-47161



> Let’s connect a few different data points so I can show you why I think events in Pakistan may very quickly come to a head — why I think some quite nasty and direct U.S. military intervention there is now likely, and soon.
> 
> I was struck last Friday by this excerpt from Barack Obama’s speech unveiling his new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy: “Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that Al Qaida is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan.” As I wrote on Friday, that language closely mirrors — and since this was a very important speech, should be read as having been designed to mirror — the language in the infamous Aug. 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief, “Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.”
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## mover1 (2 Apr 2009)

Found this link...don't know if it belongs on here. You can move it to another topic if need be.


http://englishrussia.com/?p=1778

how thngs change and how they stay the same


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Apr 2009)

A post at _Daimnation!_:

Taliban Sharia law in action: where's the Canadian outrage?
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/012950.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Apr 2009)

Two _Torch_ posts:

Kandahar: Putting the best face on the coming realities 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/kanahar-putting-best-face-on-coming.html

"Europe praises Obama, pledges few Afghan troops" 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/europe-praises-obama-pledges-few-afghan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Apr 2009)

Most Euro governments and people are not enthusiastic about Afghan combat; a _Washington Post_ reporter is surprised to find this enthusiasm:

Some Troops Embrace Afghan War
Ties to 9/11 Build Enthusiasm for the Fight, but Deployments Have Taken a Toll
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/04/AR2009040402862.html



> FORT BRAGG, N.C. -- As the fight in Afghanistan transforms from a "forgotten war" to the U.S. military's top priority -- with tens of thousands of soldiers and Marines headed there this year -- overstretched ground troops are voicing unexpected enthusiasm about the new mission.
> 
> Afghanistan represents for some service members a far more palatable war than Iraq, one that enjoys more support among Americans because of its strong ties to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "It's the just war," said an Army officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record, and who has deployed several times to Afghanistan and Iraq. "People are more positive about it."
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Apr 2009)

Obama does want to defeat some Taliban, Mr Walkom--and Mr Harper.  A letter of mine in the _Toronto Star‏_:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/614121



> Apr 06, 2009 04:30 AM
> 
> *Re: Obama's Afghan quagmire, April 4*
> http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/613536
> ...



Mr Harper unfortunately does seem to lean towards the Walkom misrepresentation of the president's policy. This is what the prime minister said on March 29:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/03/29/transcript-sheldon-alberts-interviews-prime-minister-stephen-harper.aspx



> ...You may notice the (Obama) administration is much more clear on eliminating al-Qaida than eliminating the Taliban...



Oh dear, dear, dear.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Apr 2009)

From a _Torch_ post (maps mentioned also at post):

NATO "Afghanistan Report 2009" 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/nato-afghanistan-report-2009.html



> This document (pdf)
> http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2009_03/20090331_090331_afghanistan_report_2009.pdf
> is from NATO's Public Diplomacy Division, released March 31. Though in a sense clearly spin, it's a spin to which the Canadian public rarely have in-depth access. Take a look for yourself. These maps are particularly useful:
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Apr 2009)

A post by Damian Brooks at _The Torch_, with video:

Waging Peace: Canada In Afghanistan 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/waging-peace-canada-in-afghanistan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Apr 2009)

Three _Torch_ posts about Canada's wide-ranging mission:

An Ottawa police officer in Kandahar 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/ottawa-police-officer-in-kandahar.html

A Canadian Army officer and the faithful at prayer at KAF 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/kaf-canadian-army-officer-and-faithful.html

A Canadian general getting out the message from Kabul (but note the rather depressing bit at the end of this post)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/canadian-general-getting-out-message.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Apr 2009)

"...while the fight to help Afghans help themselves rages on under extreme circumstances, it now appears the battle for Canadian hearts and minds supporting the mission has been lost."

I find it incredible that Canadians are willing to accept the subjugation of women, intolerance, thuggery and murder. We are reaping the seeds that were sown in the late 60's. Is this what we have become?


----------



## George Wallace (11 Apr 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I find it incredible that Canadians are willing to accept the subjugation of women, intolerance, thuggery and murder. We are reaping the seeds that were sown in the late 60's. Is this what we have become?



Since the end of the Second World War, the Canadian Public has never really been concerned with anything that isn't happening in their own "back yard", and even then they are fairly apathetic.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Apr 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Since the end of the Second World War, the Canadian Public has never really been concerned with anything that isn't happening in their own "back yard", and even then they are fairly apathetic.



I may be tilting a lance at windmills. But I shall NOT stop trying to educate Canadians to the fact that many of these "cultures" are not acceptable, ever. The excuse "we can't shove our culture down their throats" is NOT ACCEPTABLE when to comes to murder, thuggery and intolerance of others. THAT is a COP OUT and is NOT what we should stand for.
My hat is off the the Premier of Ontario for refusing to allow Sharia law in Ontario.


----------



## leroi (11 Apr 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I may be tilting a lance at windmills. But I shall NOT stop trying to educate Canadians to the fact that many of these "cultures" are not acceptable, ever. The excuse "we can't shove our culture down their throats" is NOT ACCEPTABLE when to comes to murder, thuggery and intolerance of others. THAT is a COP OUT and is NOT what we should stand for.
> My hat is off the the Premier of Ontario for refusing to allow Sharia law in Ontario.



OldSolduer, 

Here is an audio podcast of Sally Armstrong speaking about the improvement in the quality of life for women in Afghanistan. The intro is boring; Sally is funny, though, she calls the Taliban "dumb as doorknobs" at one point. She is totally against the cultural relativist argument and she won't give up on Afghanistan either:

From March 2009

(Sally starts speaking at about 2:40 lapsed time)

http://www.uoguelph.ca/podcast/


----------



## zipperhead_cop (13 Apr 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I may be tilting a lance at windmills. But I shall NOT stop trying to educate Canadians to the fact that many of these "cultures" are not acceptable, ever. The excuse "we can't shove our culture down their throats" is NOT ACCEPTABLE when to comes to murder, thuggery and intolerance of others. THAT is a COP OUT and is NOT what we should stand for.



How do you mean?  Have you seen what passes for a legal system in Canada?  If I was a space alien observing us, I'd think that we celebrate thugs, murderers and intolerant people.  With respect to sentencing, virtually NOTHING is against the law here.  So who are we to say that some other sovereign nation can't say and do what it wants?  Yes, this new law appears to be a rape green light, but who are we to say how it will actually be interpreted and applied?  The culture over there is very different and rare is the western person who I have come across who fully "gets it".  Not saying it's right, and not really interested in getting into some huge debate when somebody suggests that I support sexual assaults.  That isn't what I'm getting at.  I'm just saying they really have a very different way of looking at life than we do.  Through their filters, the law may not seem as horrifying as we are seeing it.  
In any case, we don't hold them to any standard of conduct whatsoever, so I don't see it happening all of a sudden now.  



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> My hat is off the the Premier of Ontario for refusing to allow Sharia law in Ontario.



Not supporting a dual path of laws isn't exactly political derring-do.  The idea was patently idiotic (although if it could happen anywhere, it would be Ontario or BC)


----------



## George Wallace (13 Apr 2009)

I may reiterate what has already been posted and mentioned in many discussions on the "Rape clause", and that is that it existed here in Canada, in our Laws, up to approx ten years ago.  So that only puts "us" ten years ahead of the Afghan legislators.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Apr 2009)

Gee Whiz! Canadian Sea King "battle taxis" at KAF!  Ace reporter Jessica Leeder of the _Globe and Mail_
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/10/what-was-that-i-was-saying-about-biases.html
returns to Afstan, still showing important gaps in knowledge:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090413.WBafghanistanblog20090413115308/WBStory/WBafghanistanblog/



> ...Before the Canadian Chinook helicopters arrived a few months ago, our only means of travelling off base was the heavily reinforced armoured vehicles that convoy over IED-prone roadways to rural outposts. The threat of an IED strike could delay our travel for hours or days, placing another layer of strain on us, and of course, our soldiers.
> 
> Now, for the most part, our new battle taxis are Sea Kings and Chinooks! It's far from a perfect world. But things are literally looking up.



Somehow I suspect Ms. Leader in unaware of the real Sea King "battle taxis" in Afstan, Royal Navy Commando Helicopter Force Sea Kings from 845 and 846 Naval Air Squadrons:
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-events/operations-in-afghanistan/photo-gallery/*/changeNav/00h00200p001/imageIndex/36/
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-events/operations-in-afghanistan/royal-navy-units-in-afghanistan/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters (13 Apr 2009)

Now that she has squandered an entire page talking about how the changes will affect her personal life, perhaps she can start to focus on real stories that people actually want to read about...?


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Apr 2009)

Another _Torch_ post, with a bite:

Afstan: "On That Law"--and some things personal 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/afstan-on-that-law.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Apr 2009)

The conclusion of an article by a former British commander at Helmand:

The best way to beat the Taliban
Military force alone won't bring peace to Afghanistan. The West must get the local economy into shape, says Ed Butler.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/5149315/The-best-way-to-beat-the-Taliban.html


> ...
> My concern is that time – and popular support – for this misunderstood campaign may well run out before there is tangible success. Just as the Stinger missile did for the Soviets, so the suicide bomber may do for Nato. Furthermore, as a senior government official once said: "We may have the clocks, but they have the time."
> 
> Of even more significance, however, is the new US administration's overt recognition that this is now a regional problem, not just an Afghan one. At the tactical level, the British government would do better to focus its resources and mindset not just on "Helmandshire" [see "Ending the Fractured Approach" around middle here],
> ...



A view from Kabul:

Afghan women want West to ease 'rape law' stance
Return to extremist rule bigger fear than effects of proposed legislation
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Afghan+women+want+West+ease+rape+stance/1493424/story.html



> As Afghanistan's Parliament debated ways Monday to protect female politicians from assassination, young women attending Kabul University expressed surprise and bewilderment at the debate raging in Canada and Europe over a proposed law that seems to allow men from the Shiite Hazara minority to sexually enslave their wives and imprison them in their homes.
> 
> The nearly unanimous view on the campus -- arguably the most progressive institution in Afghanistan -- was that the West should not involve itself in the country's cultural and religious affairs...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Apr 2009)

Quote

    As Afghanistan's Parliament debated ways Monday to protect female politicians from assassination, young women attending Kabul University expressed surprise and bewilderment at the debate raging in Canada and Europe over a proposed law that seems to allow men from the Shiite Hazara minority to sexually enslave their wives and imprison them in their homes.

    The nearly unanimous view on the campus -- arguably the most progressive institution in Afghanistan -- was that the West should not involve itself in the country's cultural and religious affairs...



There you have it, I guess... time to fold the tents, fill in the shitters and call ENDEX


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Apr 2009)

Well, will we know turn our moral outrage to Pakistan where things are even more advanced, Sharia-wise?

Pakistan president signs off on Islamic law deal
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD97HPDKO0



> Pakistan's pro-U.S. president signed a regulation late Monday to put a northwestern district under Islamic law as part of a peace deal with the Taliban, going along after coming under intense pressure from members of his own party and other lawmakers.
> 
> Asif Ali Zardari's signature was a boon for Islamic militants who have brutalized the Swat Valley for nearly two years in demanding a new justice system. It was sure to further anger human rights activists and feed fears among the U.S. and other Western allies that the valley will turn into a sanctuary for militants close to Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



As for what Sharia law means in Swat:

Video of Taliban Flogging Rattles Pakistan 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/world/asia/04swat.html?ref=todayspaper



> The video shows a young woman held face down as a Taliban commander whips her repeatedly with a leather strap. “Leave me for the moment — you can beat me again later,” she screams, pleading for a reprieve and writhing in pain.
> 
> Paying no heed, the commander orders those holding her to tighten their grip and continues the public flogging. A large group of men quietly stands and watches in a circle around her.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Apr 2009)

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20090415%2fafghan_stones_090415

Ahhh, I'm trying to remind myself what positive affect we're having there.


----------



## leroi (15 Apr 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&date=true&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20090415%2fafghan_stones_090415
> 
> Ahhh, I'm trying to remind myself what positive affect we're having there.



Yes, Flawed Design many Canadians are now feeling that way in the wake of two very different recent female deaths. Here's a piece by Canadian Muslim Irshad Manji, whose book, _The Trouble With Islam,_ is a worthwhile read. Irshad has supported the mission but is losing hope.

Tribalism Triumphs in Afghanistan

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090413.wcoafghan14/BNStory/National

(Reproduced in accordance with the _Fair Dealing _ provision of the _Copyright Act_.)

IRSHAD MANJI 
April 14, 2009 

There was a time when I believed. With every fibre of my feminist Muslim being, I believed in our Afghanistan mission. No longer.

On Sunday, the Taliban assassinated another Afghan women's rights activist. It happened only days after the world learned of yet one more anti-female statute that Afghan President Hamid Karzai had signed into law. Critics accused him of caving in to warlords ahead of the coming elections. Only when Western voices amplified the protests of liberal Afghans did Mr. Karzai put the law "under review." Human-rights advocates called it a triumph.

The victory, such as it is, will be short-lived. I'm increasingly convinced that Afghanistan's problem lies deeper than a recalcitrant Taliban or a gutless central government. It's a problem so profound that for the first time I have to ask: Should our troops just get out?

Make no mistake, I'm a fighter to my fired-up core. Challenged about the West's presence in Afghanistan by numerous audiences, I've been crystal clear about why humanitarian intervention deserves support.

To my fellow progressives, I've argued that Afghans themselves say they need NATO troops. Shall I pretend that the locals suffer from "false consciousness?" That they don't know their lives the way I do? Doesn't such haughtiness replicate the imperialist approach in which a distant elite lords it over the people on the ground?

To pacifists, I've said that you can be anti-war and pro-intervention at the same time. Consider Swanee Hunt, a noted champion of non-violence.

Recently, she wrote about serving as America's ambassador in Vienna during the Bosnian war and "hearing horrifying reports from embassy personnel who were interviewing the refugees pouring into Austria. The responsibility was awesome. I couldn't sleep at night. I wondered if I should resign my position to protest the fact [that] my country was not intervening." Then-president Bill Clinton finally deployed NATO troops to stop the genocide. Meanwhile, Ms. Hunt points out, "200,000 people died needlessly."

To those who don't want our uniformed women and men dying, I've said that soldiers themselves know the hazards of their chosen occupation.

For the public to go limp when some of our own come home in coffins is to tell the Taliban that we stand for nothing. Translation: We'll fall for anything.

But now I must ask: Exactly what are our soldiers falling for? Shortly after Afghanistan held its first free election, Mr. Karzai faced an elemental test of democracy: defending freedom of worship for an Afghan convert to Christianity who found himself charged with apostasy. Mullahs called for his execution and judges obliged them — hardly surprising since the constitution of Afghanistan proclaims sharia law supreme.

What shook me is that Mr. Karzai didn't publicly question their retrograde interpretation of Islam. He needed only to quote from the Koran, which states "there is no compulsion in religion." Full stop.

Ditto for the 2008 death sentence given to a 23-year-old Afghan journalism student. He'd downloaded and distributed an Internet article criticizing how the Koran treats women. The mullahs got their day in court. The student didn't even get a lawyer. He's still alive - in jail.

Since then, the suave and sophisticated Mr. Karzai has stayed mute about several more penalties inflicted in the name of tribal honour, from widespread gang rapes of women to acid attacks on schoolgirls.

Why would a president, routinely described as a "moderate," hand so much power to feudal warlords? Geopolitical strategists tell me it's because Mr. Karzai has to avoid carnage at all costs. But does violating innocents to pre-empt further violence makes sense?

Sadly, yes, and not just because the strategists say so. Culture is among the most obstinate forces anywhere. In societies influenced by Arab culture, a massive motivator of action is asabiyya or tribal solidarity.

This analysis originated with the Muslim intellectual Ibn Khaldun, sometimes known as the father of modern sociology. He studied how Muslim peoples evolve, especially in environments that are arid, remote, or, in the case of Afghanistan, mountainous. Where the land is harsh, there's virtually no division of labour. Human survival depends on bonds of kinship, and those bonds can easily degenerate into feelings of group superiority.

Now what happens when tribes compete for superiority? You get a cycle of vendetta and countervendetta. In the end, warlords could be more legitimate than any democratically elected parliament - more legitimate because they're more authentic to the Afghan experience.

No wonder a moderate president serially submits to thugs. No wonder military might has been a feeble backwater to the tide of history. No wonder I've got a sinking feeling that our troops can't adequately help the good people of Afghanistan.

Soldiers can restore stability, but when stability means cyclical violence, I'm at a loss for what it means to win.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Apr 2009)

I must say some days I ask "why?". But when I see 17 year old women being beaten for ANYTHING it makes my blood boil. Any man that does that is a coward, and that includes any North American male as well. I don't discriminate when it comes to the beating of women. :rage:
I realize that this is a personal view, and I know not everyone shares it. If you don't like it....tough.


----------



## leroi (16 Apr 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I must say some days I ask "why?". But when I see 17 year old women being beaten for ANYTHING it makes my blood boil. Any man that does that is a coward, and that includes any North American male as well. I don't discriminate when it comes to the beating of women. :rage:
> I realize that this is a personal view, and I know not everyone shares it. If you don't like it....tough.



OldSolduer, good points and reminders of why we're there. I support the mission but lately the news from Afghanistan is dispiriting to say the least.

God Bless those who served ... continue to serve.


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Apr 2009)

CF to "clear and hold" near Kandahar--trying really to make a difference in the life of some Afghans (usual copyright disclaimer):

Town by town: A new strategy in Afghanistan
Deh-E-Bagh is Ground Zero for an Afghan-Canadian approach against the Taliban, reports Matthew Fisher.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Town+town+strategy+Afghanistan/1500565/story.html



> A town south of Kandahar City is to become the focus of intense attention as part of a new Afghan-Canadian strategy to try to defeat the Taliban insurgency town by town.
> 
> The innovative approach is to start in the town of Deh-E-Bagh in Dand district, where the Taliban recently launched a major attack [it should be noted that in July 2007 the area was considered secure].
> http://www.afghanistan.gc.ca/canada-afghanistan/stories-reportages/kprt-eprk_2007_07_22.aspx?lang=eng
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## starseed (16 Apr 2009)

To boil an extremely complex situation down to a couple lines, I simply don't believe the majority of Afghans are ready to exchange their way of life for a western-style democracy. Everyone on this board is quite aware of the intolerable situation many Afghans, women especially, live and die with on a daily basis, and it is difficult to stand by and want to anything but get involved and try to change things. 

I just don't think democracy and freedom can take root until a country's people demand them. Until they do that, nothing the West can do will change the big picture in Afghanistan. We can keep the lion's share of terrorism busy away from our own borders, we can build schools and hospitals until the cows come home, but in it's current form, I categorically believe that the "War on Terror" is a battle we cannot win.

If there is any ray of light, it comes from spreading the opportunity for education to as many Afghans as possible. I am an equally firm believer that Education is the silver bullet, that in the long term it is the solution to more or less every problem in the world today. I also think the Taliban know this. Those poor little girls who were attacked with acid would seem to indicate that they do, anyway.

For the record, when I read that in the paper was the moment I decided the infantry was my path.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Apr 2009)

starseed said:
			
		

> To boil an extremely complex situation down to a couple lines, I simply don't believe the majority of Afghans are ready to exchange their way of life for a western-style democracy. Everyone on this board is quite aware of the intolerable situation many Afghans, women especially, live and die with on a daily basis, and it is difficult to stand by and want to anything but get involved and try to change things.
> 
> I just don't think democracy and freedom can take root until a country's people demand them. Until they do that, nothing the West can do will change the big picture in Afghanistan. We can keep the lion's share of terrorism busy away from our own borders, we can build schools and hospitals until the cows come home, but in it's current form, I categorically believe that the "War on Terror" is a battle we cannot win.
> 
> ...



You are quite correct....education is the key. How long will it take? Generations...

While I'm here, I find it amazing that Canadians, North Americans and Europeans will tolerate the intolerance displayed by some of the more radical members of Islam, who will tolerate nothing less than total submission to their interpretation of their religion.
But we CAN'T shove our way of life down their throats, can we? :rage:


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Apr 2009)

A post at _The Canada-Afghanistan Blog_:

Defying A Threatening Crowd
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/2009/04/defying-threatening-crowd.html



> Afghan women fight back...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Apr 2009)

Terry Glavin, a principled supporter of the Afghan mission, wins an award:

I Vow To Resist The Urge To Cash The Cheque And Head Straight For The Track 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/04/i-vow-to-resist-urge-to-cash-cheque-and.html

As for Afstan, some samples of Mr Glavin's views:
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/10/mayhem-on-froshgah-street-more.html
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/11/riding-with-mad-max-across-kandahar.html
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/03/all-news-that-fits-what-we-want-you-to.html
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/03/misjudgment-of-historic-proportions-ii.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Apr 2009)

Two _Torch_ based on stories by Matthew Fisher of Canwest News, who is making a real effort to report the Afghan war more broadly than most of our journalists:

NATO air buildup (read mainly US), esp. helicopters, in Afstan 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/nato-air-buildup-read-mainly-us-esp.html

"Afghanistan isn't just Canada's war" 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/afghanistan-isnt-just-canadas-war.html

As far as I can see neither story was carried by the Ottawa Citizen or Montreal Gazette, which use Canwest News. Pity.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## starseed (19 Apr 2009)

leroi said:
			
		

> Here's another myth that I've heard a lot: "the people of Afghanistan don't want us (Canada as military/as aid/ as whatever) there. "



This is the one thing I never know what to think about when I ponder the Afghan mission. Not having been there (yet, that is) I have no first hand experience to draw on. Everything I know about the history of conflict in Afghanistan tells me that they despise foreign interference, yet every soldier who has been there (whose opinion I have heard/read, anyway) has said that the vast majority of Afghans welcome their presence.

I suppose I'll find out for myself soon enough, but I'd love to hear from anyone who can speak with authority on the subject. Are Afghans actually happy that we removed their government and are trying to democratize and educate their country? Or are they simply less unhappy with us than they were under the Taleban? Or some variation thereof, if applicable.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Apr 2009)

starseed said:
			
		

> This is the one thing I never know what to think about when I ponder the Afghan mission. Not having been there (yet, that is) I have no first hand experience to draw on. Everything I know about the history of conflict in Afghanistan tells me that they despise foreign interference, yet every soldier who has been there (whose opinion I have heard/read, anyway) has said that the vast majority of Afghans welcome their presence.
> 
> I suppose I'll find out for myself soon enough, but I'd love to hear from anyone who can speak with authority on the subject. Are Afghans actually happy that we removed their government and are trying to democratize and educate their country? Or are they simply less unhappy with us than they were under the Taleban? Or some variation thereof, if applicable.



I find your comment about us having "removed their government and are trying to democratize and educate their country".  Your perception of history seems just a little out of wack.  You make it sound so sinister.  Could you explain also how we assisted them to install their government.  We are indeed educating the people, but we are not going so far as to democratize their nation, although we would like to encourage them to do so.  We do realize that they are a completely different culture than us in the West, and will develop their own form of Government, hopefully along some lines resembling a Democratic State.  We, however, are not forcing them.  We are trying to provide them the SECURITY with which to govern and defend themselves and create stability in the Region.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Apr 2009)

starseed said:
			
		

> This is the one thing I never know what to think about when I ponder the Afghan mission. Not having been there (yet, that is) I have no first hand experience to draw on. Everything I know about the history of conflict in Afghanistan tells me that they despise foreign interference, yet every soldier who has been there (whose opinion I have heard/read, anyway) has said that the vast majority of Afghans welcome their presence.
> 
> I suppose I'll find out for myself soon enough, but I'd love to hear from anyone who can speak with authority on the subject. Are Afghans actually happy that we removed their government and are trying to democratize and educate their country? Or are they simply less unhappy with us than they were under the Taleban? Or some variation thereof, if applicable.



The "government" of Afghanistan prior to 2002 was the Taliban....Not only did they beat people in public, they executed them in soccer stadiums. The destroyed everything that was not in accordance with their very twisted view of their religion.


----------



## Franko (20 Apr 2009)

Dude, are you for real?

Sit down, read about the Taliban rule, the UN mandate and the mission from 2002 to today. Sit down and TALK to vets that have been there...and not someone who sat behind a desk either. The troops that talked to locals and engaged the Taliban. Keep yourself in "receive" mode, not in "send" mode.

It is clear that you have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about and if you are trying to get in and go a tour there, you are going to have your perception of this conflict be turned upside down.

Regards


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Apr 2009)

Hitting the Taliban for six (with apologies to Monty)
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_of_el_alamein.htm
--a post at _The Torch_:

Afghan cricket: Good news and bad (sort of) news 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/afghan-cricket-good-news-and-bad-sort.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Apr 2009)

Matthew Fisher of Canwest News continues his good reporting, turning his attention to the effects of the US Army surge at Kandahar (usual copyright disclaimer):

Canadian, U.S. brass prepare for Afghan changeover
http://www.canada.com/news/Canadian+brass+prepare+Afghan+changeover/1515578/story.html



> KANDAHAR AIRFIELD, Afghanistan — With thousands of U.S. troops descending on Kandahar, Canadian and American diplomats, development experts and soldiers are involved in scores of meetings to try to ensure that the marriage of American and Canadian military and civil operations in the war-plagued province is successful.
> 
> "There is a lot going on," confirmed Ken Lewis, Canada's top diplomat in southern Afghanistan. "A big part of the laydown is being co-ordinated through their (U.S.) very big embassy in Kabul. We are meeting with them and with their embassy with followup meetings at KAF (Kandahar Airfield) and the PRT (provincial reconstruction team)."
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Apr 2009)

_Toronto Star _puff piece, disguised as news (usual copyright disclaimer}:

Ignatieff invited to exclusive Afghanistan meeting
Will attend U.S. talks as human rights expert
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/622235



> Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is off to Washington to take part in an exclusive and high-level discussion on the future of Afghanistan, the Toronto Star has learned.
> 
> Ignatieff will join Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and other diplomats and security experts at a closed-door, invitation-only meeting tomorrow looking at stabilizing the region through measures such as negotiating peace with the Taliban, reining in Pakistan, shutting down rampant drug production and closer co-operation with Russia, Iran and other neighbouring states.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Apr 2009)

_Torch_ post (note the USAF UAVs at KAF):

Afstan: Stories you'll not see in the Canadian media 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/afstan-stories-youll-not-see-in.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Apr 2009)

Another at _The Torch_:

Afstan: Roads, dear boy, roads
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Apr 2009)

_Torch_ post:

Shia leaders in Afstan (and women) 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/shia-leaders-in-afstan-and-women.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PanaEng (27 Apr 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> _Toronto Star _puff piece, disguised as news (usual copyright disclaimer}:
> 
> Ignatieff invited to exclusive Afghanistan meeting
> Will attend U.S. talks as human rights expert
> ...


Well, what do you think?
Other than political posturing, do you think it is helpful or not?

cheers,
Frank


----------



## McG (27 Apr 2009)

> *Punching above Canada's weight*
> Matthew Fisher
> National Post
> 27 Apr 09
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Apr 2009)

Link to Matthew Fisher's story above:
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=1538021

While I admire Mr Fisher's reporting from Afstan, e.g.,
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/afghanistan-isnt-just-canadas-war.html

I remain uncomfortable with reporters' writing news stories that are actually op-ed pieces (or ones fitting an agenda):
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/07/afstan-globe-and-mail-manufactures.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/07/afstan-more-misleading-reporting-from.html

Since Mr Fisher's current tour in Afstan is ending, I suppose he felt the need to get things off his chest.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (27 Apr 2009)

A good reminder that (while much of our current mission peruses the humanitarian objectives of restoring peace, order, safety and functioning governance) we are still fighting to secure both global & our national security objectives.  We are fighting to oppose a military expansionist regime that happily associates with a multitude of terrorist organizations.

This also some raises some interesting concerns about negotiation and appeasement of an enemy that has already demonstrated complete disregard for the agreements that it has signed.

I don’t oppose negotiation, but it must be done under circumstances in which the Afghan government (supported by the coalition) is in the position of power.  Appeasement will prolong the conflict and sacrifice some domestic security.


> *Taliban Takeover*
> Wake-up call for the world
> The Chronicle-Herald
> 27 Apr 09
> ...


----------



## PanaEng (27 Apr 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> A good reminder that (while much of our current mission peruses the humanitarian objectives of restoring peace, order, safety and functioning governance) we are still fighting to secure both global & our national security objectives.  We are fighting to oppose a military expansionist regime that happily associates with a multitude of terrorist organizations.
> 
> "The Pakistani Taliban are already linked to al-Qaida, but as they descend from the hills and enter the valleys and cities, they are hooking up with other sophisticated urbanized terrorists - for example Kashmiri groups that have been carrying out a proxy war with India.
> 
> Unless the powerful Pakistani military can be mobilized to fixate less on the exaggerated external threat posed by India and to focus more on the downplayed domestic threat posed by the Taliban, we will all be dealing with what Mrs. Clinton called "a mortal threat" to the security and safety of the world."


And I think they have, for quite a while, had agreements with the Kashmiri groups to keep attaking India in order to inflame tensions and keep the bulk of  Pak forces facing India and in Kashmire and neglecting the rest of Pakistan. 
This is where the Obama admin should put more effort in; specifically, promoting stability and cooperation between India and Pakistan in order to allow for Pak forces to be redeployed.


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Apr 2009)

Excerpt from an excellent post by Brian Platt at his _The Canada-Afghanistan Blog_--read the whole thing:

Why We're Over There
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-were-over-there.html


> ...
> Recently I was at a talk at the Fraser Institute with Brigadier-General Denis Thompson. One of the only pompous, smart-ass questions asked that day came from a smirky guy with a British accent. He said "don't tell me we're there for nation-building, because then why aren't we in Zimbabwe?"
> 
> Thompson clearly (and understandably) bristled at this question, responding sharply that we have to choose our fights; just because we can't be everywhere all of the time doesn't mean we can't be somewhere some of the time.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Apr 2009)

Terry Glavin adds his toonie's worth:

Decide: Sanctimonious drivel or progressive feminism. (You can't have it both ways). 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/04/decide-sanctimonious-drivel-or.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Apr 2009)

_Torch_ post:

More details on US forces for RC South/Black Watch at KAF
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-details-on-us-forces-for-rc.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 May 2009)

A post by Bruce Rolston at his blog:

They probably will. Unless they don't. 
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_04_30.html#006395



> From the New York Times' Dexter Filkins,
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/world/asia/29afghan.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
> an incomprehensible paragraph:
> 
> ...



The American soldiers would be from the 2-2 Ramrods of the CF's Task Force Kandahar:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-is-task-force-kandahar.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 May 2009)

A post by Michael Petrou at his _Maclean's_ magazine blog:

The Taliban: local or international threat (IV)
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/05/01/the-taliban-local-or-international-threat-iv/#more-54117



> The issue of whether the Taliban are insurgents with strictly local grievances or an Islamist movement with international ambitions is one that I’ve addressed frequently in this space.
> 
> It’s an important question, because if the Taliban are concerned only with Afghanistan, then Canada, the United States, and other countries with troops and aid workers in the country can pull out without endangering themselves. Abandoning Afghanistan to thugs such as the Taliban, who have recently taken to shooting alleged adulterers in Pakistan,
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/5220532/Taliban-gunmen-shooting-couple-dead-for-adultery-caught-on-camera.html
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 May 2009)

UK Cabinet Office paper (27 pages, good maps at end)--good luck seeing anything like this from our government:

UK policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan: the way forward
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/204173/afghanistan_pakistan.pdf

Note how the paper starts--not the sort of thing our government highlights often:



> *Part A: Context*
> 
> _Why Afghanistan and Pakistan matter_
> 
> ...



*Update*: I've just read the whole paper. It is, shockingly, a government document that I would urge you most strongly to take the time to read. It gives a much fuller and detailed overview of things than anything I've seen in the media. It is a paper that, er, respects the reader's intelligence. Amazing. Every bloody Canadian MP and senator, and pundit, should read it. If ten do I shall be gobsmacked. We are, sadly, not a serious country in certain quarters.

I would bet that the Assessments Staff, in the UK Cabinet Office (all source intelligence analysis for government as a whole, see p. 24 here,) drafted Part A; 
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/136045/national_intelligence_booklet.pdf
the Canadian equivalent, modelled on the British, is the International Assessment Staff in the Privy Council Office.
http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=secretariats&sub=ias-bei&doc=ias-bei-eng.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 May 2009)

What the Dahla Dam, is all about. Good on Canwest News (for Matthew Fisher's recent reporting too)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/adapting-to-us-surge-at-kandahar.html
--one wishes our media ran more such stories, particularly on television where they might have a real impact on public opinion:

REBUILDING KANDAHAR
Fighting season is fast approaching, but for the time being, Kandahar is preoccupied with water, food and crops
By Brian Hutchinson, National Post



> ARGHANDAB VALLEY, Afghanistan — Fighting season is fast approaching, but for the time being, Kandahar is preoccupied with water, food and crops.
> 
> All along the Arghandab River valley north of Kandahar city lie fields of wheat. Thousands of pomegranate trees are in blossom; their compact orange flowers scent the air. This is Kandahar at its best, and its most traditional.
> 
> ...



More on roads here:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/afstan-roads-dear-boy-roads.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 May 2009)

Student activists of another sort--from a post by Brian Platt at _The Canada-Afghanistan Blog_:
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/2009/05/creating-safe-haven.html



> ...I wanted to highlight one particular aspect of the story.
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090430/afghan_workers_090430/20090430?hub=Canada
> 
> 'A Canadian soldier expressed delight at Kenney's announcement.
> ...



More on the film at this topic:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/85911.0.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 May 2009)

Good to see NATO doing such things (via _Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs_):
http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/257-eng.html



> JOB IN AFGHANISTAN 'AN INCREDIBLE ADVENTURE'
> Trenton native has one-year NATO contract as media team leader, photojournalism teacher
> http://www.trentonian.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1538755&auth=Luke%20Hendry%20%96%20Sun%20Media
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## leroi (4 May 2009)

Generally, I'm averse to criticizing our allies but find this post on Jarret Brachman's blog regarding (some) American Forces attempt to Christianize Muslims in Afghanistan s-o-o-o counter-productive to our allied efforts. I'm inclined to place it here as an example of "how _no_t to conduct the mission:"

_So Not Helpful_
(scroll down to view the short video clip included in May 4th, 2009 post)
http://jarretbrachman.net/

Jesus wept! I hope these well-meaning, evangelical Christians are not planting translated Bibles in the homes of Muslim Afghans. That could result in getting Afghans killed. This is exactly the kind of propaganda the a-Q is using to turn moderate Muslims against the Western world: i.e. promoting fear by disseminating the idea we're in Afghanistan (and surrounding countries) to convert Muslims to Christianity.

Edit: spelling again


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 May 2009)

Our growing civilian police presence:

Mountie takes command of Canadian police trainers in Afghanistan
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/05/04/mountie-takes-command-of-canadian-police-trainers-in-afghanistan.aspx



> An RCMP assistant commissioner was appointed Monday as the first Canadian police commander in Afghanistan.
> 
> Graham Muir, who totes a 34-year tenure with the RCMP, will be in charge of all Canadian civilian police in the war-ravaged country. There are currently 30 Canadian officers from seven police agencies deployed in Afghanistan [an Ottawa Police officer is there],
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/ottawa-police-officer-in-kandahar.html
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 May 2009)

A fond farewell to an Afghan ambassador, he will be missed indeed--as good a person for the job as one can imagine. I have personally seen Mr Samad speak at small groups several times and have always been impressed with his forthrightness and gift for clear expression. His ability to put his country's case in television interviews was remarkable (an example here, August 26, 2008).
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/mps-on-mission/#clip85899
He is a superb representative of his country and will serve it well in his new posting to France:

Ottawa says farewell to Afghan envoy
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Somnia/1566256/story.html



> As Canadians came to grips with the sacrifice of their soldiers in Afghanistan and their increasingly complicated mission, Omar Samad was both the face and an elegant spokesman for a war-torn country.
> 
> After 4 1/2 years as Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada, Samad is leaving Ottawa.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (7 May 2009)

Gen Hillier weighs in:

http://www.dustmybroom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11581:general-rick-hillier-kicks-media-in-the-nuts&catid=39:advocacy



> *General Rick Hillier kicks media in the nuts *
> Written by Darcey
> Wednesday, 06 May 2009 16:42
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 May 2009)

Security in Kandahar City: Afghan forces improving--A CP story focussing on Afghan security forces (usual copyright disclaimer):

Afghan forces win U.S. kudos
Police, army conduct successful raids on Taliban hideouts in Kandahar city
http://thechronicleherald.ca/World/1120708.html



> Afghan police and the Afghan National Army have earned guarded words of praise from their international mentors for a successful series of raids on Taliban hideouts across Kandahar city that netted weapons and insurgents.
> 
> But the U.S. military commander who oversees the establishment of Afghan police in the country’s six southern provinces says the encouraging signs don’t mean Afghanistan’s national security forces are quite ready to fly solo.
> 
> ...



And a good piece from Jessica Leeder of the Globe and Mail:

Mentoring pays off as Afghan forces hit insurgents
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090506.wafghan06/BNStory/International/



> On top of a bedsheet-covered table in a guarded compound in central Kandahar lies a city map.
> 
> Sheathed in plastic, it has been scribbled over with erasable markers to divide the city into boxes, coloured according to their ripeness for police raids.
> 
> ...



Those Euros...excerpt from near the end of a July 2008 _Torch_ post:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/07/working-with-and-training-afghan-police.html



> *The police need to be paramilitary; in 2007 three times as many were killed as army personnel--but the Europeans are nonetheless uncomfortable with the paramilitary role (and have done nowhere near enough in training police).



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 May 2009)

A _Torch_ post:

Afstan: PM Harper's warm and fuzzy sell/*Update*: Not quite as generally reported 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/05/afstan-pm-harpers-warm-and-fuzzy-sell.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 May 2009)

A rather lengthy _Torch_ post (note US Army brigade combat team coming to Kandahar and Herat as trainers):

Afstan: New US Marines, Army aviation, start arriving; US command structure changes? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/05/afstan-new-us-marines-army-aviation.html

End of post:


> ...
> Lt.-Gen. McKiernan is now double-hatted as ISAF commander (reporting to NATO HQ) and commander, United States Forces-Afghanistan (reporting to Centcom commander, Gen. Petraeus).
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/more-unity-of-command-for-us-forces-in.html
> That provides a bit of command unity, though hardly ideal.
> ...





> *Update thought:* Is there a corps headquarters under a three-star, in the Kabul area, of some sort in mind with charge of operations (cf. the Multi-National Corps - Iraq)? In Iraq the broader picture is the job of the four-star in command of the Multi-National Force - Iraq. But international operations in Iraq have one chain of command; those in Afstan have two, so the Iraqi model cannot be applied holus-bolus. Round holes and square pegs.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 May 2009)

_Torch_ post:

Losing the infowar in Afstan 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/05/losing-infowar-in-afstan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (11 May 2009)

> Afghan-Canadians torn Former residents support military effort but decry casualties
> Colin Perkel, CP
> The Edmonton Sun
> 11 May 09
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (11 May 2009)

It wasn't an invasion. Let's get that straight.

Another thing the government/military have to tell the public is the terrorist habit of holding civilians in an area of combat against their will.
Another habit of terrorists is to disarm the bodies of the dead and then claim they were "innocent civilians"
It's an age old tactic


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 May 2009)

A _Torch_ post:

KAF: US Army combat aviation brigade formally in place/Apache hysteria 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/05/kaf-us-army-combat-aviation-brigade.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 May 2009)

...courtesy of the _Globe & Mail_ (highlights mine):


> .... As U.S.-led forces and the Taliban brace for what may prove the deadliest summer yet, Mr. MacKay said *Canada's role is changing to delivering aid to city dwellers “rather than simply focusing on holding swaths of land.”*
> 
> *“I believe there are a number of roles Canada can play well into the future,”* the minister said, capping off a three-day visit, but added that's subject to the will of the people. “We've said time and time *we're going to respect Parliament's voice on this*,” he said. “We can't come to Afghanistan and help them develop their democracy and not respect our own.”
> 
> Public documents tendered this month on a government website indicates Defence Construction Canada wants to buy 400 more beds at the Kandahar Air Field by next year, at a cost of $5-million, with an option to build 400 more. *The documents don't state who the beds are for *....



More on MERX listing for KAF accommodation expansion here - .pdf attached if link not working.


----------



## observor 69 (18 May 2009)

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/changing-generals-midstream-45248902.html


Changing generals midstreamGwynne Dyer 

17/05/2009 
There is always a high turnover of generals in wartime. Some get replaced because they turn out to be no good at the job, but many others are changed because they have failed at a task that was beyond anybody's ability to accomplish.
They are fired, in other words, because the alternative would be to blame the person who gave them that impossible task. That certainly seems to be the case with Gen. David McKiernan, the American commander in Afghanistan, who was appointed by U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates less than a year ago, when then-president George W. Bush was still in power. What's needed is "fresh thinking, fresh eyes on the problem," said Secretary Gates, explaining why he was appointing Gen. Stanley McChrystal to the job instead. So what should Gen. McChrystal's fresh eyes see?

He could start by understanding that the United States is not fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is fighting the entire Pashtun nation, some 30 million people, two-thirds of whom live across the border in Pakistan. That border has never really existed for the Pashtuns, who move freely across it in peace and in war.

The Taliban are entirely Pashtun in membership and always were.

When they ruled southern and central Afghanistan between 1996-2001, they were hated by the other ethnic groups (who never lost control of the north), and even by many Pashtuns. But the U.S. invasion effectively drove not just the Taliban but also the Pashtuns in general from power, in a country that Pashtuns have dominated for several centuries.

To minimize U.S. casualties, the United States made an alliance with all the non-Pashtun ethnic groups of Afghanistan (the Northern Alliance) in 2001. There really was no American land invasion; it was the Northern Alliance that defeated the Taliban, with considerable assistance from American B-52 bombers. It was a clever strategy, but it perpetuated what was effectively an Afghan civil war between the Pashtuns (40 per cent of the population) and all the other ethnic groups ---- Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek.

It is warlords from those other groups who have controlled the Afghan government ever since. "The political, religious and economic mafia are all Northern Alliance people," says Daoud Sultanzoy, a member of parliament from Ghazni province, exaggerating only slightly. "Nobody outside the Northern Alliance is in the government." Except, of course, President Hamid Karzai, the token Pashtun, who is mockingly known as "the mayor of Kabul."

This is not a war about ideology, even if all the American and Taliban commanders insist that it is. The Pashtuns are fighting to regain at least a major share of power in Afghanistan, while the American and other foreign troops are, for all practical purposes, allied to the other ethnic groups. That is why all the fighting is in the Pashtun-majority provinces.

There is no point in trying to win over Pashtun "hearts and minds."

The war will only end when the Pashtuns regain a big share of the power at the centre (and the loot that comes with it). And no matter how fresh Gen. McChrystal's eyes are, it's unlikely that he can deliver that.

On top of everything else, the U.S. still insists on eradicating the poppy-growing that provides over half of the country's national income.

Opium use is obviously a problem in Afghanistan -- as one observer said, "If you applied a drug test to the Afghan army, three-quarters of them would be kicked out" -- but burning farmers' fields leaves them no alternative source of cash income except fighting for the Taliban, who pay $200 a month.

The final thing McChrystal should understand is that "winning" or "losing" in Afghanistan makes almost no difference to U.S. security. The Taliban are not "outriders for al-Qaida," in the lazy formula used by State Department special envoy Richard Holbrooke.

The Taliban are an Afghan phenomenon with almost exclusively Afghan goals, and even if they should win absolute power after the U.S. leaves (which is unlikely), there is no reason to believe that they would send terrorists to attack the United States. Indeed, Osama bin Laden probably didn't even let them know in advance about the 9/11 attacks.

This war is not only unwinnable but unnecessary, and if David McChrystal understood all these things he wouldn't have taken the job. But he did take it, so he doesn't understand. Afghanistan is Vietnam for slow learners.


Gwynne Dyer's latest book, Climate Wars, was published recently in Canada by Random House.


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 May 2009)

A couple of very helpful posts by BruceR at _Flit_:

Let's go to the map (Kandahar province realities)
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_05_11.html#006414

Remember, we're the main effort [embedded trainers]
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_05_15.html#006418

And one at _The Torch_:

Afstan: US forces increase under Obama quite a bit more that 17,000 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/05/afstan-us-forces-increase-under-obama.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## X-mo-1979 (18 May 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Let's go to the map (Kandahar province realities)
> http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_05_11.html#006414



Wow thanks for sharing that Link.I was just wondering today if Mushan was "withdrawn" from.Very surprised that it was posted up.I thought we were gonna end up doing it before the next roto came in.That's three COP's built and three retreated from in the matter of two tours.

Going on the topic you guys have hear.
How about when we come up with a plan lets think it through.That's three pieces of ground we have lost in a very volatile area.We went down that river twice to for a lack of a better term to retreat (i.e withdraw) out of Zangabad and Hadji.
Now Mushan.

Maybe if we do not have enough forces to effectively hold ground in Zhari Panjwaii we should tell someone that we can cover from here to here, and we need x amount of troops to take over what we cannot hold.

That's over 20km in a very taliban heavy district that has zero ISAF presence.

What do you think the people in that region think of ISAF as three of their bases have been leveled to dirt.

If I was a local  I would be seriously siding with the taliban as they are certainly pushing US back.Or so it would appear.I know there is a plan for doing so at a higher level.But lets look at what these people see.That whole area west of Panjwaii is 100% taliban.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 May 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Wow thanks for sharing that Link.I was just wondering today if Mushan was "withdrawn" from.Very surprised that it was posted up.I thought we were gonna end up doing it before the next roto came in.That's three COP's built and three retreated from in the matter of two tours.
> 
> Going on the topic you guys have hear.
> How about when we come up with a plan lets think it through.That's three pieces of ground we have lost in a very volatile area.We went down that river twice to for a lack of a better term to retreat (i.e withdraw) out of Zangabad and Hadji.
> ...


Dude, think about it. And read the open source press about what's going on and what went on in Mushan, Zangabad, etc.   Zero ISAF presence?  I don't think so.  Read  these:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1414406
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=5114

Those are just two stories.  There are more out there.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (18 May 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> Dude, think about it. And read the open source press about what's going on and what went on in Mushan, Zangabad, etc.   Zero ISAF presence?  I don't think so.  Read  these:
> http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1414406
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=5114
> 
> Those are just two stories.  There are more out there.



Funny. I was out in that area on those two operations.Killed a few there.However IIRC we left and went back to the FOB.And left whom there?

Point being their freedom of movement is even more open in that area now that those COP's are gone.

Sure we found a few IED's and grabbed a few people in that area.We also withdrew out of the area as a whole.

Instead of spending so much money on setting COP's up to tear them down in a few months,plus the amount of money required to get even water to them (I.E combat team) we should start doing combat estimates on this crap prior to throwing it out there,then retreating.The insurgents depend on an effective IO campaign and we gave it to them.

Do you not think they have more power in that area now?When they come to locals and say we have rid the area of the kaffar,next time they come here help us push them further.Of course the civilians will comply as the IO campaign is easily viewed as the taliban pushing us out of their homeland.

As well if you want to win there,night patrolling in villages.For a sophisticated army with all the thermal and night vision and air superiority we sure didn't use it effectively.IMHO.

Edited:two points that are valid but I cannot prove removed.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 May 2009)

Slight Tangent
"IO" is not about messaging the locals.  That's Psyops, which admittedly is a sub-set of IO.
Information Operations is all about command and control: enabling your own and hampering the other, such that your commander has a relative advantage over the enemy.  There are, as alluded to above, things that collectively make up IO.  That includes Communication and Information Systems (Computers, radios, the like), Psyops and even public affairs.  But let us not forget that when push comes to shove, "IO" is best done as either offensive or defensive.  That includes electronic warfare, physical destruction of enemy commanders, etc.


[/rant]  Sorry, it's just that our army doesn't read its own doctrine, and says "IO" when it means "Psyops" or "Propaganda".


----------



## X-mo-1979 (19 May 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> Slight Tangent
> "IO" is not about messaging the locals.  That's Psyops, which admittedly is a sub-set of IO.
> Information Operations is all about command and control: enabling your own and hampering the other, such that your commander has a relative advantage over the enemy.  There are, as alluded to above, things that collectively make up IO.  That includes Communication and Information Systems (Computers, radios, the like), Psyops and even public affairs.  But let us not forget that when push comes to shove, "IO" is best done as either offensive or defensive.  That includes electronic warfare, physical destruction of enemy commanders, etc.
> 
> ...



Gotcha!
Apologize.Everyone I worked for referred to it as that.I'm sure that's why its a tangent as the people who said it around you were the people telling us about it out there.
Thanks for the info.Now I have another to add to the list. :nod:


----------



## vonGarvin (19 May 2009)

No apology required.  I used to think that's what IO was all about (glad handing locals, etc), but then I read the CF manual on it.  Talk about a surprise to me!

Anyway, to be back on topic here:
Did Gwyn Dyer actuälly say that we are fighting the entire Pashtun Nation?  Funny, once I met an ANA officer who was a Pashtun and he seemed to be on our side!  :  [sarcasm] Too bad I didn't read Dyer then, so that I could have homogenised the entire Pashtun race as one big bad entity and shot him on the spot!  [/sarcasm]


----------



## observor 69 (19 May 2009)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/afghanistan.pakistan/

I expect he meant something along these lines:

"The meetings are a continuation of a trilateral process started by Clinton in February, when she invited the foreign ministers of both countries to discuss Obama's strategy for stabilizing the region."

But then you already knew that didn't you.  :-\


----------



## Good2Golf (19 May 2009)

I think Dwyer was referring to the idea of "Pashtunistan" and some (most) Pashtuns' view that the Durand Line is no line at all...not that that makes the issue of Pashtunistan (or Pakhunistan, or Pakhunkhwa) any easier to understand to those not intimately read in to the history of the region.


----------



## McG (21 May 2009)

Some interesting oposites on the view for the way forward between nations;



> *Battle for hearts, minds*
> Our Afghan mission enters new phase
> The Toronto Sun
> 20 May 2009
> ...


compared to:


> *'Black ops' key to revamped Afghan strategy; Promotion signals dramatic change in military tactics*
> Peter Goodspeed
> National Post
> 20 May 2009
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 May 2009)

_Torch_ post, with material from BruceR at _Flit_:

The strategy for Afstan/*Update:* Lt.-Gen. McChrystal 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/05/strategy-for-afstan.html



> The start of a piece by David Kilcullen (via Moby Media Updates):
> 
> *If we lose hearts and minds, we will lose the war*...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## X-mo-1979 (22 May 2009)

So how do we win hearts and minds when every time we intrude into their defined area we are under contact and shooting and killing their brothers and family?

Hearts and minds is an awesome concept in a neutral area,but Canadians are dealing with areas where the Taliban has been the norm for a very long time.
Where we are viewed as the insurgents.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (23 May 2009)

For a great many of them being "Taliban" is akin to working for a temp agency.  They could care less about the cause, they just need jobs.  
Nice to see the idea of sustainable support in key urban areas.  Cripes, it almost feels like there is a plan.  With a commanders intent.  And everything!  
Almost as though the support to the area was like a drop of something on a paper or such.  And the drop started to spread... jeez, that just sounds so familiar...  
Nah.  That will never work.  Going to random villages and shovelling obscene amounts of money down range to unproven contractors with questionable ties with no eye towards results is way better.  And coordinating projects?  That's just crazy talkin'!


----------



## observor 69 (24 May 2009)

Since Obama came into office the Yanks have put their A team, military and diplomatic, into play.
Now this is getting interesting!  :nod:


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 May 2009)

Post by BruceR at _Flit_:

McKiernan revisionism
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_05_25.html#006434



> Exum
> http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2009/05/fallen-on-field-of-honor.html
> and Foust
> http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/05/25/defending-mckiernan/
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## X-mo-1979 (25 May 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> For a great many of them being "Taliban" is akin to working for a temp agency.  They could care less about the cause, they just need jobs.



Really?It seemed to us they were all taliban and didn't mind taking our money during the work day then trying to shoot us up later that day.Do you have a quote somewhere? I would love to read it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 May 2009)

From Question Period yesterday:


> Ms. Francine Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ):  Mr. Speaker, after the Minister of National Defence stated last week that the Canadian mission in Afghanistan might be extended beyond 2011, Afghan sources indicated that President Obama would require NATO members, including Canada, to provide more ground resources.  Will the government again say no to President Obama and remind him that this House has decided that the Canadian mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011?
> 
> Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC):  *Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the Canadian government's position. Its position is unchanged and reflects the will of the members of the House of Commons expressed in a motion that was passed, establishing six priorities and the end to our combat mission in 2011.*
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 May 2009)

Additional Afghan mission costs seem reasonable to me:

Manley's Afghan equipment list to cost $1.1 billion
http://www.thestar.com/article/640779



> Fulfilling the Manley commission's conditions to extend Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan to 2011 will cost more than $1.1 billion, say federal budget documents.
> 
> The Conservative government is asking for an extra $822 million in the current budget year to pay for "basic infrastructure to support air enhancements" and "mission close out costs."
> 
> ...



This a relief--good on Uncle Sam:


> ...
> The independent commission – headed by former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley – also recommended that the country's NATO partners deliver an extra battalion of ground troops to reinforce Canadian operations.
> 
> The Americans last year provided 650 soldiers, belonging to the famed 1st Infantry Division, who deployed to western Kandahar under Canadian command [in August 2008, though the MND seemed unaware of their presence in November last year].
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop (27 May 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Really?It seemed to us they were all taliban and didn't mind taking our money during the work day then trying to shoot us up later that day.Do you have a quote somewhere? I would love to read it.



There's nothing to quote.  Those were my observations when I was on tour.  And your point sort of just re-enforced mine.  A hard core believer wouldn't take dirty infidel money, or do anything that would benefit his community unless it could be pointed back to the Taliban.


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 May 2009)

A _Torch_ post:

Natural gas, pipelines, and the great game 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 May 2009)

Another _Torch_ post:

Improving ISAF's infowar 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/05/improving-isafs-infowar.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Jun 2009)

_Torch_ posts on several major issues:

America's war/ISAF command structure changes?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/americas-warisaf-command-structure.html

The US and training Afghan police in Regional Command South 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/us-and-training-afghan-police-in.html

Infowar: Pentagon new media outreach for Afstan 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/infowar-pentagon-new-media-outreach-for.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## X-mo-1979 (4 Jun 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> For a great many of them being "Taliban" is akin to working for a temp agency.  They could care less about the cause, they just need jobs.
> Nice to see the idea of sustainable support in key urban areas.  Cripes, it almost feels like there is a plan.  With a commanders intent.  And everything!
> Almost as though the support to the area was like a drop of something on a paper or such.  And the drop started to spread... jeez, that just sounds so familiar...
> Nah.  That will never work.  Going to random villages and shovelling obscene amounts of money down range to unproven contractors with questionable ties with no eye towards results is way better.  And coordinating projects?  That's just crazy talkin'!


Seeing you are saying you were cimic on our tour, you must have been the guy down begging us not to hurt their crops I assume?Seems our views of that tour we were both on vary quite a bit,I wonder why?


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Jun 2009)

Who's really killing Afghan civilians? A letter in the _Globe and Mail_:

Allied warplanes not main cause
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/allied-warplanes-not-main-cause/article1169925/



> That Afghan civilian deaths are "mainly caused by allied warplanes dropping bombs," is not supported by the evidence or broader opinion (Afghan Casualties To Rise, New U.S. Commander Says - June 2). According to UN figures, only 39 per cent of 2,119 civilian casualties in 2008 were attributed to pro-government forces, while 55 per cent were attributed to anti-government forces.
> 
> As well, bombing casualties makes up only a portion of that 39 per cent, and are the occasional result of accident or errors in planning.
> 
> ...



From the UN report itself (p. 5):
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2009.nsf/FilesByRWDocUnidFilename/JBRN-7PCD3P-full_report.pdf/$File/full_report.pdf



> ...
> 6. Air-strikes remain responsible for the largest percentage of civilian deaths attributed to progovernment forces. UNAMA recorded 552 civilian casualties of this nature in 2008. This constitutes 64% of the 828 non-combatant deaths attributed to actions by pro-government forces in 2008, and 26% of all civilians killed, as a result of armed conflict in 2008...



And from a _NY Times_ story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/world/asia/18afghan.html



> ...
> The United Nations report found that the Taliban and other insurgents caused the majority of the civilian deaths, primarily through suicide bombers and roadside bombs, many aimed at killing as many civilians as possible.
> 
> Taliban fighters routinely attacked American and other pro-government forces in densely populated areas, the report said, apparently in the hope of provoking a response that would kill even more civilians.
> ...



Oh, those _Globeites_.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Jun 2009)

A _Torch_ post:

America's war (II) 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/americas-war-ii.html



> Further to this post, a Canadian view on future conduct of the campaign...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Jun 2009)

"Harper’s Secret War Plans"--St. Steven Staples tells all:

Even paranoids have enemies 
http://dustmybroom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11796:even-paranoids-have-enemies-&catid=99:moonbats

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Jun 2009)

From BruceR at _Flit_:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_06_08.html#006442



> ... if you read anything on the issue this week you must read Andrew Exum's new AfPak report, Triage,
> http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2009/06/triage-next-12-months-afghanistan-and-pakistan.html
> written with the advice and support of Kilcullen, Nathaniel Fick, Registan's Josh Foust,
> http://www.registan.net/
> ...



Summary at the Center for a New American Security:

Triage: The Next Twelve Months in Afghanistan and Pakistan
http://www.cnas.org/node/976



> Eight years into the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, the situation is as perilous as ever and continuing to worsen. The campaign has been further complicated by a rapidly deteriorating security situation in Pakistan, where the center of gravity of the insurgency has now shifted. In counterinsurgency campaigns, momentum matters. Over the next 12 months, the United States and its allies must demonstrate they have seized back the initiative from the Taliban and other hostile actors.
> 
> This paper makes four operational recommendations – two on each side of the Durand line – which allow the new strategy articulated by the White House a better chance of success. In Afghanistan, we recommend that protecting the population take precedence over all other considerations for the time being. At the same time, however, any “civilian surge” must be used to increase the legitimacy of the Afghan government in the eyes of the Afghan population. In Pakistan, meanwhile, the U.S. government should place a moratorium on drone strikes on non-al Qaeda targets in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the Northwest Frontier Province until such strikes can be incorporated into a coherent strategy for separating the population of these areas from al Qaeda. And the United States should refocus its train and equip mission in Pakistan to place a greater emphasis on the police – the only Pakistani security service focused entirely on domestic security. Especial emphasis should be placed on the security services in those areas where Pakistani authority is strongest, such as in Punjab and Sindh.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Jun 2009)

Two _Torch_ posts:

Afstan: US General McChrystal's command team/Grappling with NATO 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/afstan-us-general-mcchrystals-command.html

Afghan infowar: US fights back/YouTube and video 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/afghan-infowar-us-fights-back-youtube.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Jun 2009)

_Torch_ post:

Afstan: US takes charge for rough times ahead (note Brits at end) 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/afstan-us-takes-charge-for-rough-times.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Jun 2009)

_Torch_ post:

A Canadian helping the infowar from Kabul 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/canadian-helping-infowar-from-kabul.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Jun 2009)

Major clanging from the CBC's Brian Stewart:

Bringing in the special forces
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/06/11/f-vp-stewart.html



> ...
> More important to watch than the numbers, however, is the kind of units arriving in the south. Most are special forces of one kind or another. In other words, soldiers extensively trained for counter-insurgency operations.
> 
> The first 10,000 Americans are highly mobile Marines, including many Iraq veterans who are well supplied with helicopters and have been hard training for months for this mission.
> ...



The Marines are not "special forces"; nor are the Stryker brigade combat team coming to Kandahar, the other major US ground combat unit coming to the south. In fact "soldiers extensively trained for counter-insurgency operations" are not in any sense special forces; otherwise the whole Canadian Task Force Kandahar would be special forces, which they definitely are not.

As for the Aussies, Mr Stewart has it ass-backwards. Their Special Operations Task Group of some 300 personnel has been in Afstan for some time
http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/global/opslipper/index.htm
and their strength increase (some only temporary) is not made up of special forces.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/afstan-aussies-to-increase-troop.html

Mr Stewart is generally considered one of our better journalists. Only in Canada, pity (see Damian Brooks on Mr Stewart).
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/06/its-never-as-simple-as-331-piece-on.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jun 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Major clanging from the CBC's Brian Stewart:
> 
> Bringing in the special forces
> http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/06/11/f-vp-stewart.html
> ...



Brian Stewart has never impressed me. Instead of three stooges, now we have four, to wit:

Brian Stewart
Scott Taylor
Sunil Ram
Steven Staples.

Any other nominations?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Jun 2009)

David Bruser of The Star.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jun 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> David Bruser of The Star.



Thank you. I am not familiar with this person. Five now....do I hear six? ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Jun 2009)

Prof. Michael Byers:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/07/at-what-point-does-he-become-partisan-i.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/02/afstan-poop-from-professor-bilge-from.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jun 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Prof. Michael Byers:
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/07/at-what-point-does-he-become-partisan-i.html
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/02/afstan-poop-from-professor-bilge-from.html
> 
> ...



Six....do I hear seven? They could be dwarves, except the dwarves were sensible and hard working.... ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Jun 2009)

Egregious Eric Margolis:

Spanking the MSM by correspondence 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/spanking-msm-by-correspondence.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jun 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Egregious Eric Margolis:
> 
> Spanking the MSM by correspondence
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/spanking-msm-by-correspondence.html
> ...



Seven, do I hear eight??


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Jun 2009)

Haroon the Magnificent Siddiqui:
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011588.html
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/484082

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jun 2009)

OK....





			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Haroon the Magnificent Siddiqui:
> http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011588.html
> http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/484082
> 
> ...



we have eight!! Do I hear nine!! (Aucitoneer type voice here)


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Jun 2009)

Linda McQuaig:

Blame Hillier!
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011197.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jun 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Linda McQuaig:
> 
> Blame Hillier!
> http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011197.html
> ...


Ladies and germs!! We have nine!! Do I hear ten? Ten anywhere?? ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Jun 2009)

Lounge Lizard Larry Martin:

"THE COLUMN I’M GLAD I DIDN’T WRITE"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/012858.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Jun 2009)

Eleven: St. Rick Salutin:

Rick Salutin: Urbane, Sophisticated, Genteel, Vacuous, Wrong. 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/10/rick-salutin-urbane-sophisticated.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Jun 2009)

Twelve: Michael Harris of CFRA, Ottawa, and the _Ottawa Sun_ (a good buddy of Scott Taylor's):

Bush-league writing
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008113.html

Hard to quit ;D.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jun 2009)

Twelve?





			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Twelve: Michael Harris of CFRA, Ottawa, and the _Ottawa Sun_ (a good buddy of Scott Taylor's):
> 
> Bush-league writing
> http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008113.html
> ...



Do we hear thirteen??  ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Jun 2009)

Alright --Doubting Thomas Walkom:

Afghanistan: The view from T.O.
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/010709.html

A nattering nabob of negativism
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/010172.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jun 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Alright --Doubting Thomas Walkom:
> 
> Afghanistan: The view from T.O.
> http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/010709.html
> ...



Sigh......Do we hear fourteen? Or are we getting silly!!  ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Jun 2009)

_Torch_ post:

US Gen. McChrystal and the Afghan people/Brits fighting with US aviation help 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/us-gen-mcchrystal-and-afghan.html

*Update:* Based on Paul Wells' post:

*Canada and the Afghan people *
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/canada-and-afghan-people.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Jul 2009)

A rather lengthy _Torch_ post:

Afstan: Gen. (ret'd) Jones vs Adm. Mullen? Various operations 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/07/afstan-gen-retd-jones-vs-adm-mullen.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Jul 2009)

The conclusion of a draft piece by BruceR at _Flit_; read the whole thing to see the, er, "challenges" to be faced (lots on links in final para in original):

On mentoring and the ANA
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_07_02.html#006459



> ...In the south of the country, mentor teams are desperate to find training time to help their Afghan charges with their new vehicles and weapons, or to, god forbid, conduct a training exercise of some kind. Well the best way to do that would be to focus those kinds of efforts on the Afghans in the relatively quiet north and west of the country, in 207 or 209 Corps (where the majority of mentors are drawn from Italy and Germany respectively, with a supporting role played by a mix of other NATO countries). Which they may very well be doing up there. But those now highly-trained soldiers are not likely to come south to spell off the soldiers already in the south in order to get that kind of fighting-training rotation thing happen. Because they can't come without mentors, and their mentors can't move. Even a swap of just a kandak or a brigade between mentor teams would be extremely difficult: neither mentoring country involved would likely trust the outcome, if only because Afghan logistical administration is so appallingly poor, with most of the equipment of both kandaks likely "disappearing" in the gap in mentoring. So left unchanged, depending on which corps they are with, some Afghan soldiers in some areas will fight until they die or quit, and some will see very little action for years.
> 
> Obviously, this is to some degree the byproduct of the West's chain of command issues in Afghanistan. Oversight of mentoring remains split between the U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom and NATO's ISAF deployment [more here]. If all the Western soldiers were drawn from the same country, or a highly interoperable smaller coalition of countries, this wouldn't be quite as bad. But really right now each regional command/ANA corps (which map onto each other) is its own independent area of operations, and in most cases the ANA Brigades and corresponding Western forces within a corps can be equally isolated for the reasons above. The U.S. surge into the south right now promises to help with this, if only because a larger portion of troops generally will be drawn from one country, and a lot of these issues will be accordingly mitigated. That won't help much in Helmand though: most of the U.S.-mentored troops that could be joined up with the Marines are in Regional Command East, on the Pakistani border, and they're not without things to do right now [more].
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/americans-learning-to-work-with-ana.html
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Jul 2009)

A post by Terry Glavin:

The Uprising Changes Everything, Part III: Exposing Iranian Treachery In Afghanistan
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/07/uprising-changes-everything-part-iii.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Jul 2009)

More from BruceR at _Flit_:

On ANA officers and hope
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_07_03.html#006460



> Good post from yet another good ETT blog here:
> http://bc235.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-06-18T18:12:00%2B04:30&max-results=5
> 
> _The bright spot is that the younger [ANA] officers I’ve worked with are much better than the older guys. Afghan Army officers basically come in three varieties: the older officers who were Russian-trained or influenced; the former mujahideen fighters/commanders; and the new, younger, American-trained generation. The former mujahideen fighters make pretty good officers and are revered by their men but don’t have the education or formal schooling and don’t listen to advice. The older officers, in the words of my best interpreter, a former ANA 1stSgt, “don’t ever want to leave the base” and have an excuse why they can’t do anything about their problems or act on our suggestions. The new generation of officers is much more willing to do operations, listen to our advice, and make some changes on the fly if need be, although they’re still somewhat afraid to make mistakes. Unfortunately, for now the power lies with that older group of officers. *Hopefully*, once the younger, American-trained generation comes of age, things will start changing rapidly for the better._
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Jul 2009)

Start of a _Torch_ post:

New USAF Air Wing established at KAF
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-usaf-air-wing-established-at-kaf.html



> The USAF is a generally unreported part of the American surge...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Jul 2009)

Germans changing ROEs and reducing caveats--anyone else have some info?

German Troops Beef Up Fight against Taliban
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,635192,00.html#ref=nlint



> Behind closed doors, the German government is slowly but surely changing the rules for combat on Afghanistan, allowing its forces to take a more offensive approach. At the same time, German popular support for the "war" that no one wants to a call war continues to decline...
> 
> On April 8, nobody even noticed when a few words -- important words --were deleted from a NATO document. One of the deleted phrases was: "The use of lethal force is prohibited unless an attack is taking place or is imminent."
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (9 Jul 2009)

An interview from a few days ago but I just came across the link.

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/militaryafghanistan/afghanistan_panel_discussion.html

I think David Bercuson showed admirable patience with the clueless one Steven Staples.
I was almost ready to throw a shoe at my TV every time Staples opened his mouth. 
The lady panelist,  Nelofer Pazira, even shot Staples down when he made uninformed statements.  :nod:


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Jul 2009)

A _Torch_ post (note "Comments"):

Canadian special forces ops in Afstan (and CSIS)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/07/canadian-special-forces-ops-in-afstan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop (16 Jul 2009)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> An interview from a few days ago but I just came across the link.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/militaryafghanistan/afghanistan_panel_discussion.html
> 
> ...



Staples comes off as a whiny, apologist that can't let go of the misguided concept that you can't win a war from a desk.  At the end, when they pretty much mock him by saying that anyone from the UN who goes outside a secured area would be killed or kidnapped, was kind of funny.  You could tell that Ms. Pazira and Mr. Bercuson had been restraining themselves, but since the interview was ending they were more interested in cutting loose.


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jul 2009)

So Mr. Staples wants to neogitate a peace? Good luck. You don't negotiate with murderers and thugs....sorry Steven, that lady shot your "solution" full of holes.


----------



## Franko (17 Jul 2009)

We should ask both Staples and Layton to go over on a "fact finding mission" and get them in a LAV. 

As soon as the convoy comes into contact, drop the ramp and tell them to ignore the bullets and go over there and negotiate.

Freakin' surrender monkeys.       :

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (17 Jul 2009)

giver said:
			
		

> I'm with the 53% of Canadians that oppose the war, waste of time and resources.



So?  Your solution is?

1.  Bring the war on terror home and fight it here.

  -  Sorry.  That is already being done.

2.  Admit defeat, and give the Terrorists free reign to perform their acts wherever they please.

  -  That means they can increase their activities freely here at home.

3.  Withdraw from Afghanistan and leave their people defenceless.

  -  Currently we are mentoring the Afghan Police and Military to teach them to have the capabilities to bring stabilization to their Region and govern their country by themselves.  To leave would mean that they do not get the training to protect themselves and eventually permit us to leave them in a stable environment.  

4.  Go through the drive-through and leave with our lunch.  Frig the rest.

-	Seems to be the most common feeling of those who have no pride, no conscious, no remorse, no desire to make the world a better place.  These are people who only care about what is in their pocket; in their tiny little world.  People who have no concept of how good their lives are, and don’t give any thought to their own safety.  People are the first to complain should something infringe on their space.  

  -  Mindless drones.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Jul 2009)

giver said:
			
		

> I'm with the 53% of Canadians that oppose the war, waste of time and resources.



You have a right to express your opinion and I fully support that. I do not agree with your position, nor your logic.
Your right to free speech was given to you by hundreds of thousands of Canadians in two world wars, Korea and now Afghanistan. Think about that.
Three young men died on 3 September 2008 so you could come on this forum and rightfully express your opposition to the war in Afghanistan. Several others died before them, and several others died after them.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Jul 2009)

giver said:
			
		

> I don't think this is winnable. There is just too much terrorism all around there, to control.


Opposition to war has its merits.  People die.  People get maimed.  It's horrible.  Having said all that, by stating that there is just too much terrorism, you are basically saying that due to enemy violence, we should stop.  I disagree with your position.

Sometimes it is necessary to use force to stop force. Not just physical violence, but also other means, such as political, social, etc.  I'm assuming that you agree that having an armed police force in Canada is a necessity.  Remember that crime will not go away.  It is pervasive and the police (as one example) are part of the system to help protect us.  There are other parts to the system, namely, the justice system, social norms and a whole whack of other parts that all help to keep us all safe from, well, from us.

I open the floor to you to offer up solutions.  Do not for one minute even suggest that if things get too bad over there, we'll just allow the refugees to come flocking to Canada.  Afghanistan, for good or for bad, is home to some thirty million souls.  Should those who use indiscriminate violence emerge victorious, then it will be for worse (for them).  Then what do we do?  Wring our hands?  My personal opinion is that we (the collective states of ISAF and OEF) are on the right track.  Unlike the Soviets, we are not trying to conquer a people.  Unlike the Soviets, who were up against a wide variety of Afghan groups, we face virtually one group: religious fanatics known collectively as "Taliban".  Unlike the Soviets, we are not facing a broad-based uprising whilst trying to fight another (Cold) War.  Unlike the Soviets, we are a collection of many, MANY states, all determined (to varying degrees, I admit) to perservere in the face of adversity.


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Jul 2009)

Still a good war--a post by BruceR at _Flit_:

Reasons for positive thinking



> I and others may cavil about long-term sustainability of our plans, or note disappointment wastes of time or money, or wonder aloud whether our priorities as Afghanistan's allies need to be re-ordered a little. But there can be no question that Afghanistan is still on the whole a nicer, safer place than it was in 2001, or 1991 for that matter. Kabul is booming.
> http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/07/16/good-news-kabul-is-booming/
> And Peter Bergen is right that the majority of Afghans' war for a better future for themselves is far from lost, for reasons he aptly outlines here [note "In fact, any number of empire builders, from Alexander the Great to the Mogul emperor Babur in the sixteenth century to the British in the Second Afghan War three decades after their infamous defeat, have won military victories in Afghanistan. The graveyard of empires metaphor belongs in the graveyard of clichés."].
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0907.bergen.html
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Jul 2009)

More on Afghan mythology at _The Torch_:

"Unconquerable Afghans": What the Globe and Mail publishes and does not 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/07/unconquerable-afghans-what-globe-and.html

Jack Layton: Simply ignorant or just plain lazy? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/jack-layton-simply-ignorant-or-just.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman (17 Jul 2009)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> waning gibbous   ???


Between one new, degree-holding poster who actually acknowledges that his "questions would be easily answered by doing in-depth BASIC research or just talking to a recruitment officer," and another who claims to want to defend Canada (in SOF no less [or "SWAT" : )...as long as the deploying authority gets _his_ approval first...

I figured the actual term for the moon's phase wouldn't be noticed, being _way_ above their heads..... I still believe that there's a tinfoil hat-induced full moon out there somewhere!


----------



## Foxhound (21 Jul 2009)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Sometime during the last century, I was being wheeled into surgery at NDMC (the real one), and I asked if I would be able to play the piano after the operation. a gullible nurse answered "Of course!"  A doctor gave her a pitying look, then asked me "Can you play the piano now, Master Corporal?"
> 
> "No sir", I answered.
> 
> ...



Same situation, same NDMC, might have been the same nurse after having had a few pitying looks.

As I was being wheeled in, bloopy-eyed on pre-op morphine, I summoned up what wit was left to me and asked, "Will I be able to play the glockenspiel after this?"  (Variation on the old piano joke.)  Keep in mind that as a member of the Corps of Drums, I did play the glockenspiel.

The nurse, obviously knowing the punchline told me, "No Corporal, you won't."  At which point I croaked, "No way!", freaked out and tried to hop (well, _fall_) off the gurney to escape to my room.  That worked out well, they still got my tonsils.

Anyhow, nice move "giver", what do you do for an encore...?


----------



## bran (21 Jul 2009)

Does anyone think that we will actually pull out of Afghanistan by the current 2011 date?


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jul 2009)

ONT said:
			
		

> Does anyone think that we will actually pull out of Afghanistan by the current 2011 date?



Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, are the views of historian (and occasional Army.ca contributor) Jack Granatstein:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-afghan-mission-going-going-gone/article1225033/


> The Afghan mission: going, going, gone?
> *Come 2011, no one should assume that Canada's military presence in Afghanistan will end at one stroke*
> 
> J. L. Granatstein
> ...



So, there’s one well connected, well informed opinion.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jul 2009)

ONT said:
			
		

> Does anyone think that we will actually pull out of Afghanistan by the current 2011 date?



Well, to play the nit-picking devil's advocate  , there's a case to be made that, according to Parliament's Resolution on the issue (also see attached .pdf), we have to be out of _*Kandahar*_ by the end of 2011:


> “…. it is the opinion of the House,
> 
> 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, and that the military mission should consist of:
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Jul 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Hmmm...waning gibbous. I was sure it would be a full moon.
> 
> Personally, I'm torn between   :   and    op:


Though that's a gibbous, it's waxing, not waning. *ducking*

OK, now to keep on topic.
Mr. Granatstein's piece is, as usual, very intelligent and informative.  One thing to remember: if the Government says "no military role", then that means no OMLT (that's a military role), no Air force: nothing.  (Other than MPs at the embassy, of course).  This is one we must continue to watch.  Now that Mr. Obama is POTUS, then what will the dippers, who have a love-affair with Mr. Obama _et al _, do now?


----------



## TCBF (21 Jul 2009)

-"Amatuers study tactics - professionals study logistics" (Bradley? Napoleon?)

- So, if you were a militarily small country that wanted to be out of a land-locked third-world desert country in two years, and you were actually SERIOUS about being out in two years, at what point would you start moving out your several thousand seacans full of stuff?

- Just asking...


----------



## bran (21 Jul 2009)

Those are articles are good points. However I think that we cannot leave Afghanistan so early, how is our government going to leave behind allies such as the British and the US to fight in Helmand and Kandahar provinces by themself? I would hate to see what they would have to say about us packing up and leaving before the job is done. Personally I think it makes us look bad, and I'm pretty sure that our troops aren't wanting to leave before the job is done either.


----------



## Staff Weenie (21 Jul 2009)

What the Federal Govt may do, especially when in a minority in the House, may bear no relation to what many CF members would 'like to see done', nor to maintaining any of our time-honoured alliances. Should this govt last that long, their hands will be tied by the will of the Bloc, Liberals and NDP...

The 'rightness' of the mission will become secondary to the need to secure votes.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Jul 2009)

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> What the Federal Govt may do, especially when in a minority in the House, may bear no relation to what many CF members would 'like to see done', nor to maintaining any of our time-honoured alliances. Should this govt last that long, their hands will be tied by the will of the Bloc, Liberals and NDP...
> 
> The 'rightness' of the mission will become secondary to the need to secure votes.


No matter what we think, we are duty bound to follow the legal orders of Parliament.


----------



## Staff Weenie (21 Jul 2009)

Indeed, it is a key sign of a healthy democracy that the military obeys the direction of a lawfully elected government (with all caveats on lawful commands etc).

What we want should never take priority over what the majority of Canadian citizens want.

We may stress the need to remain in theatre, but if we are ordered out, we leave.


----------



## observor 69 (22 Jul 2009)

July 22, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
The Class Too Dumb to Quit 
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan

I’m here in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan. This is the most dangerous part of the country. It’s where mafia and mullah meet. This is where the Taliban harvest the poppies that get turned into heroin that funds their insurgency. That’s why when President Obama announced the more than doubling of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, this is where the Marines landed to take the fight to the Taliban. It is 115 degrees in the sun, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is addressing soldiers in a makeshift theater.

“Let me see a show of hands,” says Admiral Mullen, “how many of you are on your first deployment?” A couple dozen hands go up. “Second deployment?” More hands go up. “Third deployment?” Still lots of hands are raised. “Fourth deployment?” A good dozen hands go up. “Fifth deployment?” Still hands go up. “Sixth deployment?” One hand goes up. Admiral Mullen asks the soldier to step forward to shake his hand.

This scene is a reason for worry, for optimism and for questioning everything we are doing in Afghanistan. It is worrying because between the surges in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are grinding down our military. I don’t know how these people and their families put up with it. Never have so many asked so much of so few.

The reason for optimism? All those deployments have left us with a deep cadre of officers with experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, now running both wars — from generals to captains. They know every mistake that has been made, been told every lie, saw their own soldiers killed by stupidity, figured out solutions and built relationships with insurgents, sheikhs and imams on the ground that have given the best of them a granular understanding of the “real” Middle East that would rival any Middle East studies professor.

I’ve long argued that there should be a test for any officer who wants to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan — just one question: “Do you think the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?” If you answer “yes,” you can go to Germany, South Korea or Japan, but not to Iraq or Afghanistan. Well, this war has produced a class of officers who are very out-of-the-box thinkers. They learned everything the hard way — not in classes at Annapolis or West Point, but on the streets of Fallujah and Kandahar.

I call them: “The Class Too Dumb to Quit.” I say that with affection and respect. When all seemed lost in Iraq, they were just too stubborn to quit and figured out a new anti-insurgency strategy. It has not produced irreversible success yet — and may never. But it has kept the hope of a decent outcome alive. The same people are now trying to do the same thing in Afghanistan. Their biggest strategic insight? “We don’t count enemy killed in action anymore,” one of their officers told me. 

Early in both Iraq and Afghanistan our troops did body counts, à la Vietnam. But the big change came when the officers running these wars understood that R.B.’s (“relationships built”) actually matter more than K.I.A.’s. One relationship built with an Iraqi or Afghan mayor or imam or insurgent was worth so much more than one K.I.A. Relationships bring intelligence; they bring cooperation. One good relationship can save the lives of dozens of soldiers and civilians. One reason torture and Abu Ghraib got out of control was because our soldiers had built so few relationships that they tried to beat information out of people instead. But relationship-building is painstaking.

And that leads to my unease. America has just adopted Afghanistan as our new baby. The troop surge that President Obama ordered here early in his tenure has taken this mission from a limited intervention, with limited results, to a full nation-building project that will take a long time to succeed — if ever. We came here to destroy Al Qaeda, and now we’re in a long war with the Taliban. Is that really a good use of American power?

At least The Class Too Dumb to Quit is in charge, and they have a strategy: Clear areas of the Taliban, hold them in partnership with the Afghan Army, rebuild these areas by building relationships with district governors and local assemblies to help them upgrade their ability to deliver services to the Afghan people — particularly courts, schools and police — so they will support the Afghan government.

The bad news? This is State-Building 101, and our partners, the current Afghan police and government, are so corrupt that more than a few Afghans prefer the Taliban. With infinite time, money, soldiers and aid workers, we can probably reverse that. But we have none of these. I feel a gap building between our ends and our means and our time constraints. My heart says: Mission critical — help those Afghans who want decent government. My head says: Mission impossible.

Does Mr. Obama understand how much he’s bet his presidency on making Afghanistan a stable country? Too late now. So, here’s hoping that The Class Too Dumb to Quit can take all that it learned in Iraq and help rebuild The Country That’s Been Too Broken to Work. 



NEW YORK TIMES


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jul 2009)

Interesting article by Franklin Spinney at http://www.counterpunch.org/spinney07142009.html .



> Not only is the operational focus of the NATO forces physical, it is clearly reflective of and consistent with the interdiction theories of modern western conventional war, particularly those of Baron Antoine-Henri Jomini, a very influential 19th century French theoretician who tried to systematize Napoleon's art of war. These theories reflect the incontestable fact that western combatant forces are heavily dependent on lines of communication (LOCs) for flows of supplies and reinforcements, and therefore, are highly vulnerable to physical disruption of LOCs. NATO's heavy dependency raises the ominous question of whether the fallacy of mirror imaging -- i.e., assuming the Taliban is vulnerable to something NATO is vulnerable to -- is again creating the same mistake it did for the Americans in Vietnam.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Jul 2009)

Two tidbits on how (maybe) politicians selling the mission more could have led to more public support - highlights mine.

This, from the _Toronto Star_:


> ....Military historian Jack Granatstein says Canadians likely could have been convinced to keep more than 2,000 troops in Afghanistan, if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other federal politicians had done more to tell the public about the goals of the mission.
> 
> "The government ... has simply not been willing for the last two years to explain to people why we are there, what we are doing," he said. "We should stay, but I think it's very difficult to sustain a commitment to a military operation without public support. And *the way you get public support is to have your political leaders tell you why you are there and why it's important.*" ....



and this from the _Saskatoon-Star Phoenix_ (caveat:  I'm not buying the general tone of the whole editorial, comparing Canada's mission in Afghanistan to Dieppe):


> .... In all the years Canada struggled with its mission in southern Afghanistan, Germany remained in what then was the quiet north, determined to avoid the fighting. This year, however, the Germans are discovering that war is never a spectator event. The fighting has spread north because there aren't enough NATO troops willing to pay the price to actually defeat the enemy.
> 
> This includes Canada, *whose leaders were willing to put a few hundred troops in harm's way but never wanted to risk their own political careers by trying to convince Canadians the war only could be won with an all-out effort*....



A quick reminder from the _Communications Policy of the Government of Canada_ on "politicians talk about the why, bureaucrats talk about the how":


> .... *Ministers are the principal spokespersons of the Government of Canada*. They are *supported* in this role by appointed aides, including executive assistants, communication directors and press secretaries in ministers' offices, and by the senior management teams of government institutions, which include deputy heads, heads of communications and other officials.
> 
> *Ministers present and explain government policies, priorities and decisions to the public. *Institutions, leaving political matters to the exclusive domain of ministers and their offices, focus their communication activities on issues and matters pertaining to the policies, programs, services and initiatives they administer....


----------



## leroi (4 Aug 2009)

Some praise from our American allies and a prediction for a deadly August 2009 in Afghanistan. The latter is upsetting to hear but the former is encouraging:

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2009/08/and-august-could-be-worse.html


And August Could Be Worse

August 3, 2009_
Source: The Washington Bureau: The Mouth of the Potomac_

(Here reproduced in accordance with the _Fair Dealing_ provision of the _Copyright Act_.)

*[BBM]*
July was the worst month for U.S. troops in nearly eight years of war in Afghanistan and, for a change, U.S. allies also bore a heavy toll in the fight. Forty-one Americans were killed as U.S. forces ranged south and east to press the attack against the Taliban in July, and 35 NATO troops lost their lives, at least 22 of them British. The previous highest monthly casualty tolls in Afghanistan came in June and August of 2008, when 46 were killed. By contrast, seven troops were killed in Iraq last month, all American.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, have warned of another spike in casualties in August as Afghans prepare to vote in presidential elections later this month. Council on Foreign Relations military analyst Stephen Biddle, an adviser to McChrystal, put it this way last week: “Violence is going to go up. It’s not going to go down. At a minimum, it’s going to go up in the short term. It may go up and stay up for quite awhile.

“I mean, classic counterinsurgency involves a trade-off where, in order to bring violence down eventually, you have to operate in ways that accept risk and that reduce your ability to protect your own forces,” Biddle added.

In the first three days of August, six Americans, two Canadians and one French soldier have died. The French soldier, whose name has not been released yet, was the 29th killed in Afghanistan. The office of French President Nicolas Sarkozy issued a statement after the death renewing “France’s determination to fight alongside the Afghan people.”

The grim statistics have changed the tune at the White House, Pentagon and State Department, where once there was grumbling about how little the allies were doing in the war effort. On her Far East trip last month, Secretary of State Clinton mourned the losses and rejected the assertion of critics that U.S. casualties would be cut if the allies did more. “I think it’s unfair to link the tragic loss of Americans in the battle against the Taliban and their associated terrorist allies with a failure by our allies,” Clinton said. “Now we are bearing the brunt of the battle because we put more troops into it,” Clinton said. The U.S. currently has about 62,000 troops in Afghanistan and the allies under the NATO banner have about 32,000. But Clinton added that *“we are very grateful for the contributions and the sacrifice of so many who have come to the aid of Afghanistan.”*

Defense Secretary Robert Gates took up the same theme in testimony to Congress, notably departing from the scornful rhetoric of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld who dismissed the allies as “Old Europe.”

Gates spoke at length, and here’s a sample:

*“I would tell you that we all wish that our allies would do more, but the reality is they are doing a lot. *“They have 32,000 troops in there. They are taking serious casualties. The Canadians, the British, the Danes, the Australians, the Dutch are in the fight in a big way. “Now so are the French. And the north and the west are mainly quiet, but the Germans have thousands of troops there in the north and the Italians in the west, along with the Spanish. “They are responsible for more than half of the provincial reconstruction teams. They run 53 of the operational mentoring and liaison teams and have promised to fund 103 by the end of 2011. *“So do I wish they had more there? Sure. But the fact is, they are participating and they are paying and they are paying with blood as well as treasure.”*

The allied fallen come home differently than U.S. troops lost in battle. In the U.S., flag-draped coffins arrive at Dover Air Force Base, Del. Until Gates changed the policy, photos of the arrival ceremony were barred. Now, they are permitted if families give the okay. In Canada and Britain, the return of a warrior is cause for the nation to pause and offer public tribute.

It happened spontaneously in Canada. Firefighters would flash the lights of their trucks as the cortege passed carrying the coffin of a trooper from Canadian Forces Base Trenton, Ontario, on the hour-long drive to the coroner’s office in Toronto. *Now Canadians honk their horns in tribute. They gather on overpasses to applaud. The Kings Highway 401 has officially been named the “Highway of Heroes.”*

In Britain, the residents of Wootton Bassett began gathering about two years ago to show respect as the hearse carrying a soldier passed through on the way from Royal Air Force Base Lyneham to the morgue in nearby Oxford. Now the town’s undertaker in top hat leads the procession, and crowds have swelled to thousands waving flags and saluting. The Mouth thought it would be worthwhile to list the names of some of the NATO troops who have died in Afghanistan recently:

    * Canadian Maj. Michelle Mendes, 30, of Wicklow, Ontario.
    * British Trooper Phillip Lawrence, 22, The Light Dragoons, of Birkenhead, England.
    * Pvt. Benjamin Renando, 22, the Royal Australian Regiment, of Melbourne, Australia.
    * Albay (Col.) Faruk Sungur, 51, of Erzincan, Turkey.
    * Italian Caporal Maggiore (Corporal Major) Alessandro DiLisio, 25, of Campobasso, Italy.
    * French Caporal (Corporal) Nicolas Belda, 23, of Albi, France.
    * German Hauptgefreiter (Lance Corporal) Oleg Meiling, 21, of Thuringen, Germany.
    * Danish Konstabel (Pvt.) Lerche Mads Rasmussen, 21, of Slagelse, Denmark.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Aug 2009)

NATO's "ask"via the _Globe & Mail_:


> NATO 's new secretary-general has called on Canada to maintain its military presence in Afghanistan beyond 2011 – becoming the most high-profile official to publicly tackle the disconnect between Ottawa's decision to end its military mission and other NATO members' intentions to expand theirs.
> 
> "Of course I'm not going to interfere with domestic politics in individual allied nations, but seen from an alliance point of view, I would strongly regret if that became the final outcome of the Canadian considerations," Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Thursday when asked about Ottawa's decision to end the combat mission in 2011.
> 
> "At the end of the day it is a question of our own security – we cannot allow Afghanistan once again to become a safe haven for terrorists – and I also think it is in Canada's interest to ensure a peaceful and stable Afghanistan." ....



And Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon's response, from the _Globe & Mail_,


> Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Ottawa won't be swayed by Mr. Rasmussen's comments.  He said Ottawa is intent on ending Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan in 2011. That's the plan laid out in a House of Commons motion adopted in March of 2008 by the Conservatives and the Liberal Opposition - a deal that ended their  back-and-forth feuding on the length and purpose of the Afghan mission.  *"As you know, the resolution (link to motion) calls for us to end and stop our military intervention in 2011, and that is exactly what we will be doing," Mr. Cannon said. "That decision's been made known ... and we are going to stay the course."* ....



Xinhua,


> Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon quickly responded by saying that Ottawa would stick to its plan.  *"On the other comments, however, our government is abiding by the motion passed in Parliament in 2008 (link to motion) -- that is that our combat forces will leave by 2011. We are staying the course,"* he said .... The Conservative government has vowed to withdraw troops in early 2011 ....



and Agence France-Presse:


> Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon reaffirmed Thursday Canada's 2011 exit from Afghanistan despite reported pleas from NATO's chief for an extension of Canada's deployment in the war-torn country.  *"Our government is abiding by the motion passed in Parliament in 2008 (link to motion) -- that is that our combat forces will leave by 2011,"* Cannon said .... In 2008, parliament voted to withdraw Canadian forces no later than 2011.



_- edited to remove separate thread -_


----------



## gordjenkins (7 Aug 2009)

*
AP NewsBreak: US looks to Vietnam for Afghan tip*s

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090807/ap_on_re_eu/eu_afghan_lessons_of_vietnam

snip
_When asked what could be drawn from the Vietnam experience, Karnow ( a leading Vietnam war scholar ) replied: "What did we learn from Vietnam? We learned that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. Obama and everybody else seem to want to be in Afghanistan, but not I."

"It now seems unthinkable that the U.S. could lose (in Afghanistan), but that's what experts ... thought in Vietnam in 1967," _
snip
       

By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer Slobodan Lekic, Associated Press Writer –

BRUSSELS – Top U.S. officials have reached out to a leading Vietnam war scholar to discuss the similarities of that conflict 40 years ago with American involvement in Afghanistan, where the U.S. is seeking ways to isolate an elusive guerrilla force and win over a skeptical local population.

The overture to Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Stanley Karnow, who opposes the Afghan war, comes as the U.S. is evaluating its strategy there.

President Barack Obama has doubled the size of the U.S. force to curb a burgeoning Taliban insurgency and bolster the Afghan government. He has tasked Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander, to conduct a strategic review of the fight against Taliban guerrillas and draft a detailed proposal for victory.

McChrystal and Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy to the country, telephoned Karnow on July 27 in an apparent effort to apply the lessons of Vietnam to the Afghan war, which started in 2001 when U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban regime in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Among the concerns voiced by historians is the credibility of President Hamid Karzai's government, which is widely perceived as being plagued by graft and corruption. They draw a parallel between Afghanistan's presidential election on Aug. 20 and the failed effort in Vietnam to legitimize a military regime lacking broad popular support through an imposed presidential election in 1967.

"Holbrooke rang me from Kabul and passed the phone to the general," said Karnow, who authored the seminal 1983 book, "Vietnam: A History."

Holbrooke confirmed to The Associated Press that the three men discussed similarities between the two wars. "We discussed the two situations and what to do," he said during a visit last week to NATO headquarters in Brussels.

In an interview Thursday with the AP, Karnow said it was the first time he had ever been consulted by U.S. commanders to discuss the war. He did not elaborate on the specifics of the conversation.

When asked what could be drawn from the Vietnam experience, Karnow replied: "What did we learn from Vietnam? We learned that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. Obama and everybody else seem to want to be in Afghanistan, but not I."

"It now seems unthinkable that the U.S. could lose (in Afghanistan), but that's what experts ... thought in Vietnam in 1967," he said at his Maryland home. "It could be that there will be no real conclusion and that it will go on for a long time until the American public grows tired of it."


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Aug 2009)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Canada needs post-2011 Afghan strategy, experts; critics.*
Murray Brewster, Canadian Press, 9 Aug 09
Article link

Ottawa is a place where plans are made.

There are always plans. And even plans to make plans.

Yet ask anyone in the corridors of power what the plan is for Canada and Afghanistan post-2011 and you're greeted with silence.

The musing last week of NATO's new secretary-general that he would "strongly regret" the exit of Canada's combat forces from Kandahar served to underline the unpleasant truth that the federal Conservatives have articulated no clear strategy beyond the call to bring the troops home.

When government ministers do occasionally tip-toe into that political minefield it's usually with the platitudes-laced generality that Canada will continue its important aid and reconstruction mission in Kandahar.

Canada does have its signature projects, which the government will be able to point to as accomplishments in the post-2011 time frame, but there is a growing consensus among experts that the government is closing its eyes and ears when it comes to Afghanistan.

It's a dubious strategy, especially when an anxious public is faced with mounting casualties, as was the case in July, the bloodiest month for coalition troops since the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban.

"You don't go to war because you like to fight. You go to war for political purpose," said Barry Cooper, of the University of Calgary's political science department.

"The political purpose of having troops on the ground in Afghanistan has to be restated because people tend to forget."

And that message needs to be driven home, regardless of whether Ottawa sticks to its pullout deadline or not.

It was easy to make the case in 2001 and 2002 following 9/11, but it's a tougher argument today, Cooper added.

Whether Ottawa bows to the mounting international pressure to stay depends on what the situation is like on the ground and that is likely to become much clearer after this month's Afghan presidential election, he said.

The provincial reconstruction base in Kandahar city, the showcase of Canada's development efforts, is tentatively slated to operate until 2015. Yet questions about how it will stay open and who will take over security for a growing civilian presence are left unanswered.

Beyond nut and bolts queries, there are more hard-headed considerations, such as what effect the withdrawal would have on Canada's relations with the United States, Britain and other allies who've also borne a major share of the fighting and dying in southern Afghanistan.

And then there is the tougher, more emotional reflection.

Families of hundreds of soldiers - killed or horribly wounded - will want to know what the sacrifice of their husband, wife, father, mother, son, daughter, brother or sister was all about.

Many of them say privately that Canada should not leave an unfinished war, but they are in the minority because repeated public opinion polls show overwhelming support to end the mission on schedule.

Whether it's because of political, emotional or institutional exhaustion, the Afghan question is one the Harper minority government would rather not have to face, especially now when its political survival is a week-to-week consideration.

Yet, the pressure is mounting.

Aside from NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen's somewhat clumsy appeal, the Obama Administration has sought advice on ways to convince Ottawa to stay.

The response on each occasion - led by Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon - has been swift and unyielding: 2011 as the pullout date is final.

"You can say that because it postpones any serious discussion in public about the purpose of Canadian troops in Kandahar province. That may change," said Cooper.

"I'll bet you dollars to donuts that a year from now they will say: Yes, things have stabilized and our original timetable will be adhered to - or they say things have changed and we have to revisit the issue and so on. If you look at the way any democracy has fought these kind of wars, these non-existential wars, that's what they all do."

That is precisely the concern of NDP Leader Jack Layton, who's party fought to end the current mission, and will oppose any further extension.

He called on the government to clearly outline what Canada's role will be in Afghanistan after the existing mandate expires.

"Lay out some sort of plan," he said. "You can't just leave things in such a vague, undefined way."


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Aug 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> NDP Leader Jack Layton - "Lay out some sort of plan," he said. "You can't just leave things in such a vague, undefined way."



Pot, this is kettle, you're black, over.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Aug 2009)

Ah yes, let's see "the plan" so that the Opposition can spend two years picking at it instead of helping to run the country.  And since we don't know what decisions will be made by the Government between now and then, let's provide every possible contingency plan, just so they know that all the options are being developed with equal effort and priority.

Then again, maybe there will be a change of Government by then.  Perhaps the Opposition parties should man up, demonstrate confidence, and publicly announce their plans for Afghanistan post-2011 on the theory that they will be in power by then.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (10 Aug 2009)

There hasn't been a plan since we got there.  Why should we worry about that now?


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Aug 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> NATO's "ask"via the _Globe & Mail_:
> And Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon's response, from the _Globe & Mail_,
> Xinhua,
> and Agence France-Presse:
> _- edited to remove separate thread -_



Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is an opinion piece coauthored by Eugene Lang, coauthor (with Janice Gross Stein) of a generally well received book, The Unexpected War:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/what-was-natos-secretary-general-thinking/article1245343/


> What was NATO's secretary-general thinking?
> *Canada will withdraw its combat forces from Kandahar in 2011*
> 
> Monday, Aug. 10, 2009
> ...




Lang is highly critical of Rasmussen, rightly so, in my opinion. Rasmussen is a veteran politician; he *knows* the political imperatives of minority governments; he *understands* the role of opinion on politics; he is *well aware* of the potential impact of outside pressure on an unpopular issue.

Rasmussen is not an idiot so I have to agree with Lang’s conclusion; Rasmussen would never *dare* to make such an intervention towards America, Britain or France. He dares do it to Canada because, IN HIS MIND, we “don’t matter” very much.

It is time for Canada to *demand* Mr. Rasmussen’s immediate resignation and replacement with a politically acceptable Secretary General.


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Aug 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Rasmussen is not an idiot so I have to agree with Lang’s conclusion; Rasmussen would never *dare* to make such an intervention towards America, Britain or France. He dares do it to Canada because, IN HIS MIND, we “don’t matter” very much.
> 
> It is time for Canada to *demand* Mr. Rasmussen’s immediate resignation and replacement with a politically acceptable Secretary General.



And if NATO won't fire him? His selection was not a simple or clear cut matter. To suggest that we, who were pushing a Canadian for the job, are motivated by more than sour grapes is a difficult proposition to sell.

The simple fact is that we don't matter very much militarily. We don't spend very much on defence and much of what we spend is not very useful in the present situation. Just for fun, sometime try to get an European to acknowledge that the Atlantic has a western shore. Better yet, try telling him that the western coastline of Canada and the United States is part of NATO's territory.

We also don't matter politically to a lot of the Europeans, who if they think of us at all, conjure up images of barbarians clubbing seals or robber barons clear cutting forests and strip mining the oil sands. That is, when we are not being painted as "US Lite." In the six decades plus since the end of the Second World War, our population has nearly trebled, while Europe has grown only slightly. Unfortunately our place in the world has declined almost in lock step. So, if Mister Rasmussen is looking for an easy target to belabour, blame Canada.

I also suspect that he is speaking for more than himself. At least he has the cojones to state what others may be thinking. I suspect that this is the first VISIBLE attempt to influence the Canadian government's position. Having already revealed my mistrust of the apparent public posturing, or lack of same, I wonder if other fish are being fried, or in deference to the dramatic Dane, other herring are being pickled?


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Aug 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And if NATO won't fire him?
> ...




We quit.

NATO is on the verge of failing anyway. It is, probably, not going to “fail” in Afghanistan but it will not be able to come together and do another "Afghanistan" anywhere else – like, say, Sudan. So fail, it will, through inertia or, more likely, entropy.




			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ...
> The simple fact is that we don't matter very much militarily. We don't spend very much on defence and much of what we spend is not very useful in the present situation. Just for fun, sometime try to get an European to acknowledge that the Atlantic has a western shore. Better yet, try telling him that the western coastline of Canada and the United States is part of NATO's territory.
> 
> We also don't matter politically to a lot of the Europeans, who if they think of us at all, conjure up images of barbarians clubbing seals or robber barons clear cutting forests and strip mining the oil sands. That is, when we are not being painted as "US Lite." In the six decades plus since the end of the Second World War, our population has nearly trebled, while Europe has grown only slightly. Unfortunately our place in the world has declined almost in lock step. So, if Mister Rasmussen is looking for an easy target to belabour, blame Canada.
> ...




Too true, but our efforts to “punch above or weight” within NATO have earned us nothing but the disdain of the Europeans. Time to try another tack.




			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ...
> I also suspect that he is speaking for more than himself. At least he has the cojones to state what others may be thinking. I suspect that this is the first VISIBLE attempt to influence the Canadian government's position. Having already revealed my mistrust of the apparent public posturing, or lack of same, I wonder if other fish are being fried, or in deference to the dramatic Dane, other herring are being pickled?




I suspect you are correct; we are taking a course that most Europeans *want* to take – “cutting and running” from a war that the _peoples_ have decided they don’t want to fight, irrespective of the prospects of winning it. But “we all” have to stay as long as the Americans do, don’t we? If the Netherlands and Canada go then who’s next: Australia, Britain, France, Germany? All of ‘em? Are there enough Americans to fight a _long, *long*_ counterinsurgency campaign in all of Afghanistan - and win it?

But, on balance, I’m not sure our seat at the NATO table is worth the trouble – even though I’m a great fan of the “seat at the table” school of foreign relations.

We might do better to lead the way towards some new seats at new tables: in yet another G_n_ (a replacement for the G8, so that we can stay at _that_ table); and in a new, less formal _alignment_ of militarily capable democracies that can _sub-contract_ the “robust” missions for the United Nations.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Aug 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> So, if Mister Rasmussen is looking for an easy target to belabour, *blame Canada*.


----------



## gordjenkins (10 Aug 2009)

_So fail, it (NATO in Afghanistan) will, through inertia or, more likely, entropy._

Good point about NATO
 - inertia or entropy sets in when there is no plan or purpose.

The simple $64 dollar questions are :

- why is NATO in Afghanistan?

and

- better still - why is Canada in Afghanistan in the first place?


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Aug 2009)

gordjenkins said:
			
		

> _So fail, it (NATO in Afghanistan) will, through inertia or, more likely, entropy._
> 
> Good point about NATO
> - inertia or entropy sets in when there is no plan or purpose.
> ...











There.  Now you have my 2000 word answer.


----------



## gordjenkins (10 Aug 2009)

Do you think-for one moment-   one second -finding or,,, whatever to ,,to Bin Laden would make one iota of difference to the present situation ??

You sir are living in the past


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Aug 2009)

gordjenkins said:
			
		

> Do you think-for one moment-   one second -finding or,,, whatever to ,,to Bin Laden would make one iota of difference to the present situation ??
> 
> You sir are living in the past



Anyone?  Anyone? op:


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Aug 2009)

gordjenkins said:
			
		

> Do you think-for one moment-   one second -finding or,,, whatever to ,,to Bin Laden would make one iota of difference to the present situation ??
> 
> You sir are living in the past


*cracking knuckles*
Great...now I have to TYPE 2000 words because you conveniently forgot the recent past!!!  :threat:
First of all, there was some dude named Osama bin Laden.  (see photo 1)  He ran a terrorist organisation that hated the west in general, and the US in particular.
One day, whilst living in Afghanistan with tacit approval of the government (the so-called "Taliban"), he dediced to attack the US.  So, he launched some suicide boats against a US ship.  The ship, called "The USS Cole", suffered grave damage and many lives were lost.
Slick Willy decided to launch some cruise missiles.  Not much else happened.
11 months later, ObL decided to up the ante, since the US had already demonstrated that they were indeed weak-kneed cowards.  (Now look at photo 2)
Well, the so-called Weak Kneed ones were part of this alliance called NATO.  This alliance got together and declared this an attack against them all.  Canada, by the way, was part of this alliance.  So, the US, backed up by its friends, went to the Taliban and said "Give him up".  They said no.  So, the US (and friends) said "Game over".  So, they bombed Afghanistan, which allowed the western-friendly "Northern Alliance" to kick some Taliban ass.  ObL and friends ran away, and they tried to fight the US in Iraq, but ended up getting their asses handed to them.  Though they did knock the Spaniards out of Iraq, the US just kept coming and coming and killing ObL's followers to the point that his group is largely irrelevant.
Now the Taliban.  They hate the west as well.  They also like making Martyrs of themselves.  Hence their lemming-like attacks against NATO (remember the friends of the US?)  Also, as a side note, the UN (that big, non-aligned group of nations) declared that the US (and friends) had every right to attack Afghanistan, given the overwhelming evidence that the planning and support of the attack (as seen in photo 2) originated from there, with the tacit approval of the government of Afghanistan.

*sigh*
Next time just use Google and find it for yourself.  Or I can put up more pictures for you.  Or use monosyllabic words.  (As a side note, why does "monosyllabic" have five syllables?)


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Aug 2009)

Hey, fellows. You understand, I know, that if we cannot manage to talk with each other or talk to each other, civilly, that a Mod will along to lock this up.

I'm pretty sure that you are both gentlemen - reasonable men who can disagree, reasonably, even when the issues are emotive.

Thanks, gentlemen, for helping to keep interesting threads open.


----------



## observor 69 (10 Aug 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> *cracking knuckles*
> Great...now I have to TYPE 2000 words because you conveniently forgot the recent past!!!  :threat:



I know the feeling.   
And that's the reason you find me responding with bits of googled (it's a noun, it's a verb) articles or just not bothering to rise to the bait.


----------



## helpup (11 Aug 2009)

I agree with Rambler summation.  However I would like to add, if you dont agree with the reason for being there fine.  How about we undertook a commitment to help that nation get it's collective feet on the ground with a Govt that can (corrupt or not is not the main point) look after the Afghanis interests.  With a military that can defend that Govt's policy. A police for that can look after local, regional and national interests.  We started this job as a response to an attack on one of the members of NATO.  That has evolved over time into " lets set this up so the Afghanis can look after themselves."  

There have been lots of mistakes along the way, disjointed plans and lack of commitment from various nations.  By and large Afghanis do want us there to bring peace and prosperity.  Something that country has been short of for over 30 years.  Those that do not want us there are outside of being the minority, aided by various countries that would prefer a destabilized Afghanistan, and just to hurt the West in general.  

We are starting to get the numbers over there that are needed to blanket the various regions.  I wont say it is something we are winning but it is something we can do.  ( You could argue that it is something NATO must do if it is to remain relevant or capable in playing a role in this evolving world.)

These things take time, they take commitment or have people forgotten how long we were in Cyprus, Bosnia and the other spots around the world where we were either trying to impliment peace or imposing a peace. 

Finally for this post ( I could go on) I would rather that we finnish what we started over there.  Doing anything less reflects poorly on Canada, and NATO, and just strikes me as WRONG.  I have done that before didnt like it then, dont like it now.


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Aug 2009)

Start of a rather lengthy round-up post at _The Torch_:

The US, Afstan and Kandahar (and Canada): Who's really in charge
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/08/us-afstan-and-kandahar-whos-really-in.html



> A _Wall St. Journal_ story on new US and ISAF commander Gen. McChrystal's thinking...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (11 Aug 2009)

> Sorry, Mr. Rasmussen, Canada has done its bit
> Montreal Gazette
> 11 Aug 09
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Aug 2009)

...or is there a noticeably higher incidence of MSM stories suggesting, "hey, we should be staying, you know".  Funny how these are coming out now that it appears the PM is firm on going - where were these arguments, say, a couple of years ago?  :

From the Canadian Press:


> A Canadian departure from Kandahar in 2011 would seriously undermine NATO's war in Afghanistan, said a U.S. counter-insurgency expert, who served as a special adviser to the alliance's new ground commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.
> 
> The withdrawal of a small number of troops is not as big an issue as the loss of experience and credibility with local Afghans in what has become the most important battleground in the war-torn country, said Anthony Cordesman _(link to think tank bio)_
> 
> ...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Aug 2009)

Maybe it's just a big ole "wag the dog" style psy op?  Get enough people all over the world saying "gawd, we can't do this thing without you!!" and all of a sudden the sheeple look up from Dancing With The Stars and say "hey, we can't just bail on them now.  They need us!"  Canadians need to be needed.  
Now, throw in a health dash of "Canada is doing a better job than the United States" (which I don't believe) to invoke that old unfounded cultural conceit and you'll see protests on The Hill _demanding_ that we stay.  
Next, because our elected Honourable Members are SO in tune with the desires of their constituents, well... you can't just ignore the will of the people, right?  Then we have it come up in The House again, another vote and presto-zippo.  We're back in the game.  Never mind the toll the whole overreaching Gong Show is having on the CF.  
It's flawless.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Aug 2009)

Silly me - I just thought it was another manifestation of some media's "hey, if the government wants x, we have to root into why it shouldn't happen" approach.


----------



## observor 69 (12 Aug 2009)

How about the Yanks are making a major change in their approach to Afghanistan? Recommitment to the mission at all levels diplomatically  and militarily plus new tactical application of classic COIN methodology defend the people first.  
ISAF until now has not had sufficient personnel and resources, now that it does it makes sense for all NATO members to make an effort to support the mission.

But you already knew this right!


----------



## Gunner98 (12 Aug 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ...or is there a noticeably higher incidence of MSM stories suggesting, "hey, we should be staying, you know".  Funny how these are coming out now that it appears the PM is firm on going - where were these arguments, say, a couple of years ago?  :



The PM is awaiting an election call and he will side with what the majority of the population want.  Once re-elected with his dream majority government he can quickly change his side of the issue.  The military will remain but a pawn for the government either to win re-elections or to win in the international popularity game.  A PM can have it both way, his predecessors have proven it.


----------



## helpup (12 Aug 2009)

He can be boxed in on that issue, especially during an election.  If he comes out publically to refute hidden agenda claims and catagorically states ( much like he has now) no we are out of there.  That would slow to no go changing things even if he wins a majority ( and I dont see a healthy majority in the works right now)

Working with the liberals and sending out feelers to meet the international request to extend the mission would be, I believe, more feasible.  

I think the more likely however would be a slight extension by a tour or so to wind things up and a remaining presence for OMLT with support.  I dont like the idea of leaving, and wish a way was found but I am also a realist.


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Aug 2009)

A thoughtful post by BruceR at _Flit_:

Past 2011, is mentoring an option?
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_08_12.html#006489



> It's always difficult to read tea leaves, and parse what the government really means when it says Canada will no longer have a "combat role" after 2011 in Kandahar. I'm not sure they know what they really mean. It is, however, a position that now enjoys overwhelming popular and political support. The question is, if we were respondent to American or NATO pressure to continue on in some capacity anyway, what options now remain open with that? Would a continued presence of a Canadian Provincial Reconstruction Team still be open for debate? (Probably.) Would the use of helicopters in transport roles be? (Possibly.)
> 
> How about continuing ANSF mentoring? Maybe not so much.
> 
> ...



And the conclusion of one today:

Today's essential Afghan reading: to-and-fro edition
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_08_12.html#006491



> ...
> 
> Canadians should be clear that, while our military has gained respect for the disproportionate casualties it has incurred since 2005, we haven't necessarily impressed anyone with that military's actual prowess in its counterinsurgency operations, at least to date. Being respected for one's toughness and for one's ingenuity are two different, and sometimes almost unrelated, things. To take a more extreme example, the British army on the Somme is respected rightly for taking heavy casualties and staying in the fight, but condemned for the pointless tactical approach that produced those same casualties.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Aug 2009)

No mentoring, no nothing.  If our military mission is to end in 2011, that means no PRT, no OMLT, no BG, no TFK.  The only military presence would be the MPs in Kabul.  Anything else means that our military mission would continue.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Aug 2009)

MGen (ret’d) Lewis MacKenzie has a slightly different take on it in this opinion piece, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/canada-will-not-abandon-afghanistan/article1249819/


> Canada will not abandon Afghanistan
> *Come 2011, we'll be there one way or another*
> 
> Lewis MacKenzie
> ...



It is, pretty much, the _party line_ from Moscow Ottawa; _viz_:

•	We have done great things;

•	We have done more than our “fair” share;

•	The army is tapped out – it needs a “time out;” 

•	We will still be “engaged” – just not in combat. We’ll have our very own _caveats_ that will – everyone hopes – keep the casualty lists down;

•	Parliament has spoken – if you like the pull out it’s a good, Conservative, idea; if you don’t like the pull out you can blame it all on _Iggy_ and the Liberals; and

•	We – Canadians, Conservatives, whoever – *can* have it both ways.



Edit: grammar/punctuation


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Aug 2009)

That goes against what the CDS has said on the matter.  "No military mission" means just that.  No BG, but also no PRT and no OMLT.  No Air Wing, no nothing.  That was his take on things.

OMLT cannot stay as they definitely engage in combat (arguably more than the BG).  PRT also engage in combat, perhaps not as much; however, IEDs (the number one killer) hits everyone.  If the government says "End Ex", then that's that.  Conduct a Relief in Place with an incoming unit, and wave good bye as we fly out of KAF.  *That* is the party line from "the boss".


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Aug 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> That goes against what the CDS has said on the matter.  "No military mission" means just that.  No BG, but also no PRT and no OMLT.  No Air Wing, no nothing.  That was his take on things.
> 
> OMLT cannot stay as they definitely engage in combat (arguably more than the BG).  PRT also engage in combat, perhaps not as much; however, IEDs (the number one killer) hits everyone.  If the government says "End Ex", then that's that.  Conduct a Relief in Place with an incoming unit, and wave good bye as we fly out of KAF.  *That* is the party line from "the boss".




The "boss," indeed. Whenever someone told me that "they" had just decided something (usually something unpleasant) my first question, always, was: "Which _they_?"

Who is the "boss?" Boss of what?

These decisions (there are several of them, I think), whatever they may be in (or may have become by) the Spring/Summer of 2011 are about 99.99% *political*, so my guesstimate is that Gen. Natynczyk's views on the whole matter are of little to no importance. Minister McKay - or his successor, and there's likely to be at least one before July 2011 - will have some, but quite limited, influence on the matter.

The "boss" is the PM and he will seek the advice of his political brain-trust, including his polling teams. The polls matter now and may (will if we are still in a minority parliament - Conservative or Liberal minority, same difference) matter just as much in 2011. That means that the public, _per se_, and public "opinion leaders" and public "opinion makers" (many in the media) may be the "boss."


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Aug 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The "boss," indeed. Whenever someone told me that "they" had just decided something (usually something unpleasant) my first question, always, was: "Which _they_?"
> 
> Who is the "boss?" Boss of what?
> 
> ...


Of course, my mention of the CDS as boss was deliberately in quotes.  I guess I'm just passing on his take of direction received _thus far_.  I understand that the employment of the military is simply a matter of foreign policy at the sharp end, and in two years, many things can (and probably will) happen.  Governments may come and go, outside events may affect policies and so forth.  
I suppose only time will tell.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Aug 2009)

And see this from here.

This, asking Australia to *replace* Canada, is real political pressure on Canada.

Despite what Janice Gross Stein, Eugene Lang and others have said, good relations with _"official Washington"_ do matter - military burden sharing in Afghanistan does translate into a better softwood lumber deal.  

How we _perceive_ ourselves to be _perceived_ by the Americans also matters to Canadians. Remember how excited we all got when George W Bush said Britain was America's "best friend forever" and ignored Canada in a _State of the Union_ address? Wow! The media made it sound like the sky had fallen. If Canadians want to be "respected" or, if that's impossible, at least mentioned in passing, then we need to "do" what America wants done. Right now that means staying in Afghanistan, in combat. In 2011? Too soon to tell.

Oh, and guess *who* matters when policy is discussed?

(Answer, from my secret decoder ring: him He's not a clone of Kevin Lynch, but defence has too few friends in the top levels of the public service.)


----------



## dapaterson (13 Aug 2009)

Graehme Wood of _The Atlantic_ is touring southern Afghanistan with US and Canadian troops.  His articles are an intersting foot-on-the ground narrative.

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/graeme_wood/

My favourite quote so far:



> The linguistic relationship of the French Canadians and their US and Afghan partners is rarely an obstacle, but is sometimes amusing to observe. At one point the radio says in rapid French that "the base is being attacked by multiple fighters on motorcycles, with small arms and supporting mortar fire." The translation for non-Canadians says in a thick Quebec accent that "the strong point is being attacked by..." -- and here there is a three-beat pause -- "the enemy."


----------



## observor 69 (13 Aug 2009)

I can see a Vietnam similar scenario where our air assets are kept in place, some, all, certainly the C-17s, and combat forces withdrawn.
I believe the air force leadership would support this idea and it could probably be sold to the Canadian public.


----------



## McG (14 Aug 2009)

> *We can't stay in Afghanistan
> NATO has 27 members, but only the Americans, Dutch, British and Canadians have supplied fighting forces*
> Peter Worthington
> The Toronto Sun
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Aug 2009)

Anyone have any comments on this _Torch_ post?

US Army ground strength at Kandahar: Upperdate
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/08/us-army-ground-strength-at-kandahar.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Aug 2009)

MCG: Letter of mine in the _Toronto Sun_:

DON'T OVERLOOK THE DANES
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/letters/2009/08/17/10482086-sun.html



> Re "We can't stay in Afghanistan" (Aug. 14),
> http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/08/14/10459006-sun.html
> Peter Worthington says "Along with the Dutch (who are also leaving), the British and Americans, we are the only four of 27 NATO members who are putting bodies on the line to do what fighting is required." Worthington, along with almost everyone else, is overlooking the strong Danish contribution in Afghanistan. Denmark has some 700 troops in the country -- most are committed to combat alongside the British in Helmand province. The Danes have suffered 24 fatalities. Denmark's troop contribution and fatalities are at least proportionate to Canada's. The Danes are certainly pulling their weight. It is a great pity that so little notice has been taken of their effort.
> 
> ...



More at _The Torch_:

No, no, Mr Rasmussen! Danes in Afstan noticed!
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/08/no-no-mr-rasmussen-danes-in-afstan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Aug 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Rasmussen is not an idiot so I have to agree with Lang’s conclusion; Rasmussen would never *dare* to make such an intervention towards America, Britain or France. He dares do it to Canada because, IN HIS MIND, we “don’t matter” very much.



This, from the "some matter more than others" department:


> As NATO Secretary General, it is with great sadness that I recognise that over 200 brave and professional British servicemen and women have now lost their lives in Afghanistan.  I feel these losses keenly, as I feel the losses of other nations serving in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force.  My thoughts go out to all the families affected, as does my gratitude to the troop contributing nations as a whole for the essential contribution they are making to the international effort in Afghanistan ....


Did I miss the (previous) NATO SecGen's statement highlighting Canada's 100th?  Or the US's 700th, for that matter?  Or am I being whiney here?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2009)

I think that at some senior political, military and bureaucratic levels of the alliance there is rather a lot of left-over ill will towards Canada for the late ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s when we appeared intent on getting a major free ride.

It is important to remember that, in 1970, when we decided, unilaterally, to shrug off our share of the common defence burden, many Europeans and Americans were still very worried about a *potential* (not just _possible_) Soviet attack. This was long before Gorbachev came on the scene, a generation before the wall fell and the USSR collapsed. Canada decided to become a military freeloader. That might not have been quite as bad if we had been a quiet, polite military freeloader but that was not the case. Canadians hectored their allies, wagging prissy, generally anti-American, fingers in the faces of the people who were carrying a full load. It was *bad policy*_ (stupid is not too strong a word) and it was badly implemented – but it was *good domestic politics*. It “played” well in several parts of the country.

A lot of NATO folks have very, very long institutional memories and our considerable contribution and sacrifices in the Balkans and Afghanistan have not erased our reputation as weak sisters.
_


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Aug 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think that at some senior political, military and bureaucratic levels of the alliance there is rather a lot of left-over ill will towards Canada for the late ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s when we appeared intent on getting a major free ride.
> 
> It is important to remember that, in 1970, when we decided, unilaterally, to shrug off our share of the common defence burden, many Europeans and Americans were still very worried about a *potential* (not just _possible_) Soviet attack. This was long before Gorbachev came on the scene, a generation before the wall fell and the USSR collapsed. Canada decided to become a military freeloader. That might not have been quite as bad if we had been a quiet, polite military freeloader but that was not the case. Canadians hectored their allies, wagging prissy, generally anti-American, fingers in the faces of the people who were carrying a full load. It was *bad policy*_ (stupid is not too strong a word) and it was badly implemented – but it was *good domestic politics*. It “played” well in several parts of the country.
> 
> ...


_

I suspect you are right about long memories. There may be a little bit of deflecting attention away from their own shortcomings here, and we make a convenient target as we are too puny militarily and economically to pose much of a threat to anybody. Having said that, far too often our diplomatic forays or policy initiatives are ill-timed, inept and/or draped in naked inward looking self-interest described in self-congratulatory bombast. Having played the NATO grasshopper to the others' ants for four decades, we should not be surprised if our sincerity and staying power are questioned. And nobody else gives a hoot what we think anyhow.

_


----------



## Rifleman62 (17 Aug 2009)

At the fundraising luncheon at the BCD Armoury on Friday, 14 Aug, the CDS, in response to a question, stated very clearly that Parliament had voted. After the withdraw date in 2011 there will be no CF personnel in Afghanistan. No PRT, no mentors, no security force for aid programs. He stated this the day before on local TV while visiting Vernon Cadet Camp.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Aug 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A lot of NATO folks have very, very long _institutional_ memories and our considerable contribution and sacrifices in the Balkans and Afghanistan have not erased our reputation as weak sisters.



Thanks for that tidbit - puts into better perspective...


----------



## Gunner98 (17 Aug 2009)

If you wanted to cite the 700 Danes as being a 'major contribution' - what about these other NATO folks:

Belgium - 650
Bulgaria – 610
Germany – 4,220
Italy – 3,650
Norway – 598
Poland – 2,000
Romania – 1,025
Spain – 790
Turkey - 730

Or is it just the # of dead/injured that make it a significant contribution?


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Aug 2009)

Simian Turner: Denmark's population is 5.5 million, 1/6th  Canada's.  On an equivalent per capita basis they would have 3,500 troops in Afstan and have suffered 144 deaths.  Rather impressive I'd say (the _Sun_ edited out that part of my letter).

Of the country's you list only Poland and Romania have an official (if limited) combat role.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2009)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> If you wanted to cite the 700 Danes as being a 'major contribution' - what about these other NATO folks:
> 
> Belgium - 650
> Bulgaria – 610
> ...



On a straight _per capita_ basis Mark is right, Denmark (1 soldier in A'stan for every 7,850 Danes) and Norway (1/8,025) are contributing *more* than Canada (1 for 11,785).


----------



## McG (17 Aug 2009)

> *After Kandahar
> Canada will pull its troops out of combat in Afghanistan in 2011, and we must decide what the new role will be for our military*
> Major-General (ret'd) Cam Ross
> The Ottawa Citizen
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Aug 2009)

.... with a different title, here.


----------



## Gunner98 (17 Aug 2009)

Worthington stated "NATO has 27 members, but only the Americans, Dutch, British and Canadians have supplied fighting forces."

ER Campbell states, "On a straight per capita basis Mark is right, Denmark (1 soldier in A'stan for every 7,850 Danes) and Norway (1/8,025) are contributing more than Canada (1 for 11,785)

Mark stated: 





			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Simian Turner: Denmark's population is 5.5 million, 1/6th Canada's. On an equivalent per capita basis they would have 3,500 troops in Afstan and have suffered 144 deaths. Rather impressive I'd say (the _Sun_ edited out that part of my letter). Of the country's you list only Poland and Romania have an official (if limited) combat role. Mark Ottawa



Numbers are whatever you want to make of them. I assume you state official combat role to omit discussion of the Special Forces not officially serving there and the fact that the others are providing security forces not currently in combat.

As for the numbers: 
- Denmark has 25,000 soldiers in their full-time defence forces (38% of our total regular force) of which 10,560 are active Army pers (which is approximately 50% of what we have).  Therefore on a capability basis they could have an even bigger footprint (twice as many pers).

- Estonia also a NATO member has 289 troops deployed along side Brits and Danes in Helmand province (mostly PRT), they draw from a population is 1,300,000 (1/25 Canada), 1 soldier for every 4498 Estonians, and they have the equivalent of 7,225 troops and have suffered 4 deaths (equivalent 100 deaths).


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Aug 2009)

Thinking about Afstan--a challenge to the policies of Western countries:

What the West needs in Afghanistan: humility
A failing campaign calls for recalibrated purpose, not a redoubled effort.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0817/p09s03-coop.html



> As Western military casualties in Afghanistan mount, the troop-contributing nations are blaming common scapegoats: ill-equipped soldiers, not enough helicopters, wrong vehicles, too many constraints on military actions, too little money, and poor leadership.
> 
> Their solutions seem simple: Increase the troops, give them more or different equipment, deliver more local development, even change the military leadership. The result should be fewer casualties and a nation on a path to stability and prosperity.
> 
> ...



Some interesting reading from 2006 concerning the ISAF commander, esp. the "tipping point", 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/07/afstan-change-of-military-focus-in_31.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/08/afstan-nato-isaf-commander-hopes-for.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/10/afstan-at-tipping-point.html

and, in retrospect, the comparative lack of success in the counterinsurgency--see second part of this post:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/08/canadian-kill-taliban-mortar-teamwhat.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Infanteer (19 Aug 2009)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Or is it just the # of dead/injured that make it a significant contribution?



I'd venture that what they are actually doing would be key for judging a nation's contribution.  Is it a small force with a large NCE and national caveats that llimit its flexibility?  Then it ain't much of a contribution, in my opinion.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Aug 2009)

Once again, despite our stellar contribution to *this* operation, I do not think Canada is in a position to hector its NATO partners, tempting though it may be.

We are, right now, _punching above our weight_, but it’s only after a long period of “freeloading.” It would be most _appropriate_ to lead by the example of our actions and let them speak for themselves. Leave some Europeans and the Americans to chide other Europeans. The old saying that _silence is golden_ is usually true – it is especially true when Canada may want to talk about “burden sharing” for thirty of the past forty years.


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Aug 2009)

We may not be in a position to hector, but that has never restrained Canadian politicians in the past, and I doubt if it willl anytime soon.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Aug 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> We may not be in a position to hector, but that has never restrained Canadian politicians in the past, and I doubt if it willl anytime soon.



You are, of course, quite correct. But: it's *bad policy* even as it is *good, domestic politics*.

Sadly, but avoidably, the politicians _sins_ are catching and bureaucrats and soldiers have decided that they, too, should join in. The Clerk of the Privy Council would do us all a favour if he would tell bureaucrats and soldiers to "put a sock in it" and ask the Pm to tell ministers to do the same.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Aug 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> We may not be in a position to hector, but that has never restrained Canadian politicians in the past, and I doubt if it willl anytime soon.




I'm certainly not suggesting that Canadians soldiers, especially those who have served, and those Canadians who have born extraordinary burdens and paid too high a price, are not in a _position_ to hector and complain or just grouch about the imbalance of effort in Afghanistan. They have _earned_ the *right* to hector.

It is at the national, policy and political level that I find hectoring counter-productive. It is unnecessary, unwarranted in some cases,and, above all, _unbecoming_. We want to be a leader amongst the middle powers; good leaders set examples; they "walk the walk" and leave the talking to the followers.


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Aug 2009)

Two informative post by BruceR at _Flit_:

Today's essential Afghan viewing (ANA vs. ANP)
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_08_20.html#006504

Cordesman report on Iraq army (and Bruce makes some ANA comparisons)
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_08_20.html#006505

Whilst Terry Glavin spotlights a real enemy (see the last three paras):

The People Will Win. Long Live Afghanistan. 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/08/people-will-win-long-live-afghanistan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Aug 2009)

Conclusion of a piece by Robert Kagan--it seems to me that Canadians have related moral scruples--wanting UN sanction/cover for military action, and then not considering it enough in Afstan:

The President and the 'Necessary War' Myth
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082102922.html



> ...
> The fact is, unless the nation is invaded or its very survival is imminently threatened, going to war is always a choice. So what is the point of trying to make this elusive distinction anyway? For many, including Obama, the present purpose is to distinguish Afghanistan from Iraq, Obama's "good" war from George W. Bush's "bad" war. But it won't work. As Haass correctly argues, right or wrong, they were both wars of choice.
> 
> But there is a deeper reason, as well, for Obama to claim necessity in Afghanistan.
> ...



I think one could argue that no Canadian war since 1867 has been one of necessity--except World War II and in 1939 it did not actually appear to be one.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Aug 2009)

And a post, both impassioned and reasoned, by Brian at _The Canada-Afghanistan Blog_:

The Election
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/2009/08/election.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Aug 2009)

Regarding WW II (at end of _Torch_ post):
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/08/afstan-war-of-necessity.html



> Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King said this in October 1939, just under 80 years ago; how far we have come:
> 
> "Canada is engaged in a war which is a crusade to save Christian civiilization and the liberty of mankind, Prime Minister Mackenzie King declared in a radio address last night.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Aug 2009)

President Obama will soon have to make some tough decisions--militarily and politically:

U.S. faces hard choices on Afghanistan war plans
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/23/mullen-worried-over-public-support-afghan-war/



> ...
> 
> Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is completing an assessment of what he needs to win the fight there. That review, however, won't specifically address force levels, according to Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
> 
> ...



More troops needed in Afghanistan, allies tell U.S. envoy
Commanders say the insurgency in the east is intensifying, but a request for a troop increase could face resistance from Congress as public support for the war appears to be softening. (Headline rather misleading--not the allies doing the telling but Americans, see following story)
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fg-afghanistan-holbrooke24-2009aug24,0,6743493.story?track=ntothtml



> ...
> Although American attention has focused primarily on the fight in southern Afghanistan, many senior U.S. military officials have come to the view that they *need to step up the fight against Jalaluddin Haqqani and other insurgent leaders in mountainous eastern Afghanistan* [emphasis added]. They believe that a greater U.S. push there, combined with pressure from Pakistani troops on the other side of the border, could grind down the groups, several of which range between the two Asian nations.
> 
> Some military officials believe Haqqani has suffered setbacks because of Pakistani army pressure and is at a vulnerable moment.
> ...



U.S. Military Says Its Force in Afghanistan Is Insufficient
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/world/asia/24military.html?ref=todayspaper



> ...
> Mr. Holbrooke [US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan] visited regional command centers in Kandahar, Herat, Mazar-i-Sharif and Bagram on Saturday and Sunday. Speaking to Afghan reporters at the NATO base in Mazar-i-Sharif, Mr. Holbrooke said that part of the new strategy would include *reaching out to members of the Taliban* [emphasis added] who show a willingness to lay down their arms. Many Taliban fighters, Mr. Holbrooke said, “fight because they’re misguided, or because they want a job.”
> 
> “Anyone who renounces Al Qaeda and comes back to work peacefully in the Afghan system,” he continued, “will be welcome.”...



Meanwhile, _Globeite_ Paul Koring in Washington commits a clanger:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/state-of-afghanistan-deteriorating-top-us-soldier-says/article1261705/



> ...
> Thousands of U.S. Marines are currently being sent to Kandahar along with neighbouring Helmand province...



It's actually the US Army arriving in force at Kandahar, Mr Koring.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/08/canada-hands-off-part-of-kandahar.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Loachman (24 Aug 2009)

I didn't get an accurate account, but there were lots of Marines arriving in KAF in the period prior to my departure earlier this year, with an impressive number of helicopters (AH1W, UH1N, CH53).


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Aug 2009)

Loachman: Quite--from April:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/aurora-to-afstan-at-lastmore-on-us.html



> ...
> With the imminent arrival of more than 100 helicopters from the U.S. army's 82 Aviation brigade, as well as scores of U.S. Marine Corps helicopters...



But I'm sure Mr Koring had ground troops in mind and the Marine 2nd Expeditionary Brigade in focused at Helmand:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/us-marine-expeditionary-brigade.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Aug 2009)

A letter of mine in the _Ottawa Sun_ (last at link):

Not a major concern
http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/letters/2009/08/25/10607781.html



> Re: “Quittin’ time in Afghanistan” (Aug. 23).
> http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/eric_margolis/2009/08/23/10569911-sun.html
> Eric Margolis writes “The war really is about oil pipeline routes and western domination of the energy-rich Caspian Basin.”
> 
> ...



A Canadian journalist in, er, action:

Canadians ready for Afghanistan
NPS panel looks at culture of embattled country
http://www.insidebayarea.com/california/ci_13205983



> When talking about Afghanistan, the Canadian journalist seems to see the cup as half empty, while the Canadian Army general sees it as half full.
> 
> Graeme Smith, foreign correspondent for The Globe and Mail, one of Canada's leading newspapers, spoke pessimistically at the opening session of a conference Tuesday at the Naval Postgraduate School on culture and counterinsurgency in southern Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



And Canadian blogger Babbling Brooks in brilliant action, properly rounding up the usual suspects committing journalism:

Real propaganda 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/08/real-propaganda.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Aug 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> And Canadian blogger Babbling Brooks in brilliant action, properly rounding up the usual suspects committing journalism:
> 
> Real propaganda
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/08/real-propaganda.html



C'mon, now - the Taliban has denied they did it, both in an official statement (links to Milnet.ca forum with statement), and to Al Jazeera - they wouldn't lie about something like this, would they?


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Aug 2009)

Terry Glavin zeroes in:

News From Afghanistan: Understatement-ad-Absurdum, Snake Oil and Propaganda 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/08/news-from-afghanistan-understatement-ad.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Aug 2009)

Yet again--at _The Toch_:

More Afghan pipeline nonsense 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/08/more-afghan-pipeline-nonsense.html



> Rounding up the usual conspiracy theories--_letter in the Toronto Star_...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Aug 2009)

Here is a fairly accurate description of events to show how distant a pipeline would be.

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/pipeline_timeline.htm

Even if a agreement was signed today, construction could not start for years. A route would have to surveyed, agreed upon by all parties involved (read payoffs) Geotechnical work would have to be done, resulting in route changes, resulting in more haggling about payoffs and that all happens before even 1 metre of pipe is laid. So far after 2 large companies have spent 20years trying to do this, even the route survey are not complete. The people bringing up these theories think laying pipe is like rolling out a garden hose. I review pipelines here and with all of the resources we have it takes years to select a route, over well known terrain with excellent geology information available. I had a pipeline proposal show up at my office for me to read, it weighed 60lbs and that was for about 400km of pipe.

I should also mention that IF a pipeline was to be built through Afghanistan, the government and people would benefit through employment increased transportation infrastructure, increase in skilled labour thanks to training given to locals and through a legitimate source of revenue thanks to the transit fees that would have to be paid. Of course can’t have the natives getting their own funds, then they might tell the NGO’s to piss off.


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Aug 2009)

Title says it all:

How to Lose in Afghanistan
By Anthony H. Cordesman
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/30/AR2009083002252.html



> The United States cannot win the war in Afghanistan in the next three months -- any form of even limited victory will take years of further effort. It can, however, easily lose the war. I did not see any simple paths to victory while serving on the assessment group that advised the new U.S. commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, on strategy, but I did see all too clearly why the war is being lost.
> 
> The most critical reason has been resources. Between 2002 and 2008 the United States never provided the forces, money or leadership necessary to win, effectively wasting more than half a decade. Our country left a power vacuum in most of Afghanistan that the Taliban and other jihadist insurgents could exploit and occupy, and Washington did not respond when the U.S. Embassy team in Kabul requested more resources...
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Aug 2009)

A _Torch_ post:

What the Afghan war demonstrates about Canada 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-afghan-war-demonstrates-about.html



> The, to me pitiful, fact that a wealthy nation of 33 million people cannot keep some 1,000 troops in combat--with around 30-40 fatalities a year--for more than five years. Reasons: political controversy, public ambivalence, and a very limited military capacity.
> 
> Earlier:
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/canada-and-afstan-i-cringe-for-my.html
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Aug 2009)

Canadian OMLTs, and a US Marine ETT--post at _The Torch_:

Embedding with the Afghans 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/08/embedding-with-afghans.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Aug 2009)

"Reductio ad Bushium":


> If these elements succeed, President Obama will be as much a failed wartime president as George W. Bush.


G.W. may have dropped the ball on Afghanistan; however, after an initial fumble in Iraq, he was able to make a third and long and convert into a first down in the red zone.  The quarterback may have changed, allowing B.O. to go in for the win; however, I'm not so sure that "Bush Bashing" is any more productive than Obama Bashing>


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Aug 2009)

The democrats dont have much backbone for a fight so they may look for an opportunity to bail.
Saw this from Michael Yon who has been in Helmand with the Brits. I guess they didnt like his analysis because his embed was canceled.



> We need more troops.  The leadership tells us that the Taliban and associated groups control only small parts of the country.  Yet enemy influence is growing, and so far, despite that we have made progress on some fronts, our own influence is diminishing.  For example, an excellent British infantry unit that I embedded with in Iraq and now Afghanistan, the “2 Rifles,” is staked out in the “Green Zone” around the Helmand River.  HQ for 2 Rifles is at FOB Jackson near the center of the map above.  There are several satellite FOBs and Patrol Bases, each of which is essentially cut off from the outside world other than by helicopter or major ground resupply efforts (which only take place about once a month).  The latest ground resupply effort from Camp Bastion resulted in much fighting.  The troops up at Kajaki Dam are surrounded by the enemy, which has dug itself into actual “FLETs.”  FLET is military-speak for “Forward Line of Enemy Troops.”  In other words, the enemy is not hiding, but they are in trenches, bunkers and fighting positions that extend into depth.  The enemy owns the terrain.
> 
> The British are protecting Kajaki Dam but otherwise it’s just a big fight and no progress is being made.  The turbine delivery to the dam, which I wrote about last year, was a tremendous success.  Efforts to get the turbine online have been an equally tremendous failure.  Bottom line: the project to restore the electrical capacity from Kajaki Dam is failing and likely will require multi-national intervention to bring it online and to push back the enemy.
> 
> We need more helicopters.  Enemy control of the terrain is so complete in the area between Sangin and Kajaki that when my embed was to switch from FOB Jackson to FOB Inkerman—only seven kilometers (about four miles) away—we could not walk or drive from Jackson to Inkerman.  Routes are deemed too dangerous.  Helicopter lift was required.  The helicopter shortage is causing crippling delays in troop movements.  It’s common to see a soldier waiting ten days for a simple flight.  When my embed was to move the four miles from Jackson to Inkerman, a scheduled helicopter picked me up at Jackson and flew probably eighty miles to places like Lashkar Gah, and finally set down at Camp Bastion.  The helicopter journey from Jackson began on 12 August and ended at Inkerman on the 17th.  About five days was spent—along with many thousands of dollars in helicopter time—to travel four miles.  Even Generals can have difficulty scheduling flights.  Interestingly, when I talk with the folks who reserve helicopter space, they say the Generals are generally easy-going about the lack of a seat, but that Colonels often become irate.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Aug 2009)

and the Brits are paying a price in equipment, 2nd Chinook lost


British forces lose Chinook helicopter as it crash-lands in HelmandMichael Evans, 
The British task force has lost a second Chinook helicopter within ten days. It crash-landed yesterday with 19 people on board.

The Chinook, with a crew of four, was ferrying soldiers from the 2nd Battalion The Rifles battle group when it landed heavily, east of Sangin in northern Helmand, suffering severe damage to the undercarriage, nose and front rotor. None of the passengers or crew was injured. 

The Ministry of Defence said that the Chinook was unflyable. “Despite all options being investigated, due to the location and the environment the decision was taken that it could not safely be recovered and so it was subsequently destroyed by military personnel using explosives,” it said.

The troops continued with their planned operation and the crew was picked up by one of the two other Chinooks on the mission.


On August 19 a British Chinook being used to drop special forces soldiers came under enemy attack, causing one of the engines to catch fire. The pilot made an emergency landing and no one was hurt. Both Chinooks were reduced to scrap to prevent the Taleban gaining access to equipment on board.

The loss of two such valuable helicopters means that the British military now has only about 11 Chinooks to transport troops and supplies around Helmand. Eight Chinook Mk3s that were bought for the special forces are being reverted to ordinary utility helicopters at a cost of more than £90 million. However, the first of these will not be ready for operations in Afghanistan until next year.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6815587.ece


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Aug 2009)

If you ever wanted to know how to fight a war on the cheap just ask the Labor government. Its simply a disgrace how they have allowed the military infrastucture to fall apart. They keep reducing battalions to the point where cadets will be the only one's to carry on the history of a unit.


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Aug 2009)

tomahawk6: Germans seem, if anything, worse off than the Brits (note the aircrew training problem):

Snafu in Afghanistan
German Troops Bemoan 'Criticial' Deficits in Training and Equipment
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,646085,00.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Sep 2009)

Start of a post at _The Torch_:

Afstan: You didn't need a crystal ball... 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/afstan-you-didnt-need-crystal-ball.html



> ...to foresee what was coming in Gen. McChrystal's report...



More from (the suddenly unembedded) Michael Yon in the field--and fight--on the tough times the Brits are having in Helmand (many photos):

Precision Voting 
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/precision-voting.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Sep 2009)

And a post by Terry Glavin:

On Afghanistan: Stop Wasting Time, Stop Whining. 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/09/on-afghanistan-stop-wasting-time-stop.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Sep 2009)

The start and conclusion of a thoughtful post by Damian Brooks at _The Torch_:

A question of commitment 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/question-of-commitment.html



> The other day, a good soldier and better friend to me posed this question: “Should Canadian soldiers continue to bleed and die in Afghanistan on a mission that not one of our political parties is willing to fight – let alone lose – an election over?”..
> 
> ...the Afghan mission should have represented the perfect opportunity to meld the compassionate idealism of the political left with the hard-nosed practicality of the security-conscious political right and stand firm in our commitment – to our own national interests, and to the people of Afghanistan. This should have been the one mission we could all agree upon. That support for such a potentially bi-partisan effort has been allowed to slowly decompose to such embarrassingly meagre levels is an indictment of Canadian leadership across the political spectrum.
> 
> With this in mind, perhaps my friend’s question should be rephrased one more time: “If Canadian soldiers are going to continue to bleed and die in the dust of Afghanistan for the betterment of both countries, shouldn’t Canadian politicians be willing to invest a fraction of the commitment that our soldiers so willingly give?”



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Sep 2009)

The start of a post by Terry Glavin that brings a lot of things together:

The Afghan Election: At History's Crossroads Stands A Single Canadian Traffic Cop
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/09/afghan-election-at-historys-crossroads.html



> Momentous shifts in the course of human history can sometimes come down to some small drama unfolding in a far-off corner of the world. In this way, the weight of historical forces end up turning on chance events, luck, and the actions of lone individuals.
> 
> Grant Kippen is the head of Afghanistan's Electoral Complaints Commission, and whether he likes it or not, his name is about to go down in the annals of Afghan history. As the Times put it just yesterday, "the country’s future now lies largely in his hands." ..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Sep 2009)

What I really think, in case you hadn't sussed it, about Afstan and Canadian political attitudes. 

The centre thinks that the Afghan government is not very good, thus no longer worthy of our military support. The left, especially the hard left, argues that the Afghan government is actually awful; so who cares if the Taliban retakes power? After all it's the Afghans' cultural right to truly horrrendous rule. Conservatives--and I mean with a capital "C"--sought political advantage from the war, did not properly explain it, and have since decided there is no such advantage. They now would rather take the fight to Mickey I.

All three Canadian political trends are simply unwilling to accept that casualties in some real numbers are sometimes necessary for our country to do its internationalist bit. Leave that to Uncle Sam and John Bull. And to their marines.

Moreover, don't bother about funding the Canadian Forces adequately to be a military capable of sustained combat operations in any real numbers.

And if, say, violent Islamic fundamentalism abroad really is a threat to us, to the rest of the West, and to many other people--go to the washroom since we won't pay the bill (to paraphrase John Manley in another context) for sticking around in the struggle .

Canadians love to talk the talk about being a, er, force in the world and still (delusionally) believe we are. But we will not walk the walk, nor pay the price. Not that most of the Western world is any better.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Sep 2009)

Some good points by Max Boot in the _Wall St. Journal_:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574388630158193104.html?mod=djemEditorialPage



> Given declining poll numbers and rising casualty figures, it is no surprise that the chattering classes are starting to bail out on a war in Afghanistan that was launched with their enthusiastic support. From Sen. Russ Feingold on the left
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574376872733294910.html
> to columnist George Will on the right,
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083102912.html
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Sep 2009)

But problems in how the war has been fought so far (I suspect much of this analysis may also be applicable to what Canadians were doing at Kandahar)--and moral reasons for the campaign:

Cracking on in Helmand
Britain’s bloody campaign in Afghanistan has been marred by hubris, confusion and a failure to understand our Taliban adversaries
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2009/08/cracking-on-in-helmand/



> ...
> The real problem remains that the US approach of “clear, hold and build” is a tactic, not a strategy. It leaves unanswered just how much of this vast, lawless country should be cleared and held...
> 
> An operation like Panther’s Claw may kill or drive away the Taliban, but may be counterproductive to winning or losing the longer war. Doing fewer things better—and letting the world know about them—can have greater effect than pouring more troops into an extended offensive.
> ...



Via BruceR. 
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_09_03.html#006515

More on Helmand here.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/precision-voting.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (3 Sep 2009)

> *Sending message we're tired of fight boosts taliban; *
> Afghanistan: To Stay Or To Leave? Two Points Of View
> Nigel Hannaford
> Calgary Herald – Editorial
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Sep 2009)

More American wavering:

Should Obama go 'all in' on Afghanistan?
Before the president bets his chips on a military solution, he should figure out if there are other cards that can be played.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bacevich7-2009sep07,0,5826004.story



> By Andrew J. Bacevich
> 
> Back in January when he took office, Barack Obama had amassed a very considerable pile of chips. Events since then have appreciably reduced that stack. Should he wager what remains on Afghanistan? That's the issue the president now faces.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Sep 2009)

A broad perspective from Anne Applebaum in the _Washington Post_:

Will Obama Fight For Afghanistan?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702071.html



> Perhaps this summer's record bloodshed did it, or perhaps it was the disappointment of the election, with its low turnout, accompanying violence and allegations of fraud. Whatever the reason, the Afghan war is suddenly at the center of political debate in several Western countries. At stake are not merely tactics and strategy but a far more fundamental question: Should we still be in Afghanistan at all?
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/ways-out-of-afstan.html
> 
> Given how different the political cultures of North America and Europe are sometimes alleged to be, the similarity of the arguments is striking. In the States, George Will has just pointed out that U.S. involvement in Afghanistan has lasted longer than its participation in World Wars I and II combined.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Sep 2009)

A post by Paul at _Celestial Junk_ (his son is with the Army at Kandahar):

Pondering Afghanistan
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2009/09/pondering-afghanistan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Sep 2009)

Downer from *Deutschland* (long article):

Can the War Be Won?
Disillusionment over Afghanistan Grows in West
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,647531,00.html



> _Public support for the war in Afghanistan is being undermined by incidents such as Friday's air strike, in which many civilians are reported to have died. US President Barack Obama and the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, want to try a new approach, but many analysts believe the war can no longer be won._
> 
> The images are shaky, but you can see things well enough to recognize that something is not right. And then it happens: An armored car belonging to Western forces races through the streets of an Afghan city. Panicked civilians scramble to get out of the way. A civilian car moves into the lane ahead of the military vehicle. The machine gunner aims, fires and scores a hit.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (8 Sep 2009)

> Italy backs calls for Afghan meeting
> The Calgary Sun
> 08 Sept 2009
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Sep 2009)

And from Paul Wells of _Maclean's_ magazine (who has been pretty level-headed):
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/12/growing-storm.html

It just keeps getting harder to believe in Afghanistan
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/08/it-just-keeps-getting-harder-to-believe-in-afghanistan/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Sep 2009)

Based on his read of the commitment of his AQIM "hosts" during captivity, here's what now-freed (and former DND Deputy Minister from 1989 to 1995) Robert Fowler has to share with the CBC:


> Retired Canadian diplomat Robert Fowler says the four months he spent in captivity with a band of al-Qaeda militants has fortified his critical view of Canada's role in Afghanistan ? that the time and money would be better spent elsewhere.
> 
> "I cannot object to the objective in Afghanistan, but I just don't think in the West that we are prepared to invest the blood or treasure to get this done," says Fowler, a veteran diplomat who was in Niger as a UN Special Envoy when he was captured last December.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Based on his read of the commitment of his AQIM "hosts" during captivity, here's what now-freed (and former DND Deputy Minister from 1989 to 1995) Robert Fowler has to share with the CBC:




Mr. Fowler is not questioning the _ethics_ of the mission or, even, its _necessity_. What worries him most, I think, is that *Canadians*, our aunts and uncles, neighbours, childhood friends and so on, are unprepared to _invest the blood and treasure_ that is required.

No public support = no political support = a failing mission. 

What to do? Find a way to “declare victory” in 2011. That may mean *clarifying* the aim(s) – it may mean fabricating a new one.

And after Afghanistan? An _operational pause_ to recruit, train and re-equip? Or increasingly complex, bloody, frustrating and deadly mission*s* in Africa? That’s my bet.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No public support = no political support = a failing mission.
> 
> What to do? Find a way to “declare victory” in 2011. That may mean *clarifying* the aim(s) – it may mean fabricating a new one.
> 
> And after Afghanistan? An _operational pause_ to recruit, train and re-equip? Or increasingly complex, bloody, frustrating and deadly mission*s* in Africa? That’s my bet.


Sadly, I agree with your prediction - and what happens when we eventually face a situation, not unlike now, where the public/politicians/the political commonweal wants solutions yesterday to problems that have, in some cases, taken generations to get to where they are?  A warning to those wanting to help Africa instead of Afghanistan hoping for a popular, easier fix:  be very careful what you wish for....


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Sep 2009)

Here's hoping:

U.S. Learned Its Lesson, Won't Abandon Afghanistan, Gates Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/08/AR2009090802802.html?referrer=emailarticlepg



> Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said in an interview broadcast this week that the United States would not repeat the mistake of abandoning Afghanistan, vowing that "both Afghanistan and Pakistan can count on us for the long term."..



Of course the defense secretary does not make the key decisions.

Meanwhile, _Globeite_ John Ibbitson, back from Washington to be Ottawa bureau chief, is hard at the agenda:

Harper's fate tied up with Karzai's
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/harpers-fate-tied-up-with-karzais/article1279925/



> _With another election looming, and the situation in Afghanistan deteriorating, the Tories especially face electoral erosion over the Afghan adventure_
> 
> Hamid Karzai's woes are Stephen Harper's woes.
> 
> ...



*Update thought:* Despite Mr Ibbitson's obvious hopes I don't see much at an election:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/cf-and-canadian-politics.html



> ...
> If there is a federal election this fall I'll wager there is little or no attention paid either to Afstan or defence matters generally (that's what happened during the last campaign).
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/10/our-brain-dead-election.html
> Pathetic.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Sep 2009)

A post at _The Torch_:

The thundering pundit herd 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/thundering-pundit-herd.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Sep 2009)

Robert Fowler on his al Qaeda captivity and on Afstan on "The National", Sept. 9, from CBC transcript:
http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/special_feature/living_with_alqaeda/transcript_robert_fowler_inter.html

Video here:
http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/special_feature/living_with_alqaeda/living_with_alqaeda_the_robert_2.html



> ...
> *Fowler*: As night falls they take three spare tires and pile them one on top of the other, haul out their nifty laptop, plug it into the engine, to the cigarette lighter in the engine compartment, and fire it up and we watch what we call TV night.
> 
> They would have video cameras slaved to sniper rifles as they sort of popped the heads off GIs in Iraq and Afghanistan, endless IEDs blowing up Hummies and trucks and conveys in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lots of suicide bombers crashing through gates blowing up, some buildings, some were other, and every time this would happen the audience would scream Allahu Akbar, and wasn’t that great...
> ...



My reaction: Mr Fowler seems to me only too typical of a Chretien view of the world.  Give up if it's tough, and think you can stop nastiness through development.  Seeing as he described from personal experience what terrifying fanatics the hard-men Islamists are, can't he see the consequences of giving them back a big chunk (at a minimum) Afstan would be?  And that material progress is irrelevant to them?  Both as a motive for their actions and as a goal they seek to achieve.

*Update*: Canwest spreading the news:

Robert Fowler questions Canada's role in Afghanistan
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Somnia/1976494/story.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Robert Fowler on his al Qaeda captivity and on Afstan on "The National", Sept. 9, from CBC transcript:
> http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/special_feature/living_with_alqaeda/transcript_robert_fowler_inter.html
> 
> Video here:
> ...




Actually, this bit is, I think, the core of his “message:”

_” There isn't enough to go around and in our 6 billion there are a billion happy rich people and there are a billion desperately miserably poor people and 4 billion people in the middle who are a lot closer to the bottom billion than the top. We don't have nearly enough money and energy to deal with a tiny proportion of that misery. And therefore it strikes me as rather extreme that one goes out and looks for particularly complex misery to fix. There's lots of things to fix that can be done more efficiently and probably more effectively...”_

Radical, fundamentalist, _jihadist_ Islam is a problem – a deadly problem so long as “we” do two things:

1.	Support Israel; and

2.	Prop up the thugs and plugs that rule most of the Arabic/Persian/West Asian world.

It may well be a *moral imperative* to support Israel and if that is the case then we might just as well nuke Mecca, Tehran, Cairo, Damascus, Islamabad and so on now – rather than wait for the inevitable trigger. Of course if we stop supporting Israel *it* will likely nuke Mecca, Tehran, Cairo, Damascus, Islamabad and so on fairly soon.

Letting the fundamentalists slaughter the petty kings and princelings and very occasional elected leaders of about ten to 15 of the North African/Middle Eastern/West Asian sheikdoms is, probably, an easy course for us to take. It’s hard to see how Osama bin Laden can do much more harm than the House of Saud has already done. They are, after all, the folks who paid for this:







For better or worse “we,” the American led West, are in a long, long struggle that, like it or not, IS a crusade against Islam. I’m sure that wasn’t what most of our leaders intended but it’s where we are headed. I’m not convinced it is the right way to go.

Plus, see my comments in the Karzai urges selection of end date for international military operations in Afghanistan thread:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If *good governance* is to be a criterion then they might as well just invite Afghanistan into the European Union because European troops will never leave.
> 
> The correct “victory condition” is sufficient security so that the writ of the legitimate, elected Afghan government extends, pretty much, everywhere in the country. Thus: _Afghans can make their own political decisions_, including decisions we do not like, _in their own ways_, including in ways we don’t like, _without too much fear of intimidation_ by e.g. the Taliban.
> 
> ...



IF I’m right, if we’ve “given up” then what is the point in spending more “blood and treasure” on a lost cause, especially when there are other "problems" on which we might spend some of our scarce money?


Edit: corrected grammar


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Sep 2009)

This from Canadian Press:


> NATO's secretary general, who recently ruffled feathers by urging Canada to extend its combat mission in Afghanistan beyond 2011, quietly scuttled a planned visit to Ottawa that was supposed to take place over the last few days .... Alliance officials were not immediately available for comment. But Canadian government officials, speaking on background, said *the cancellation happened at the last minute after an air force Challenger had been tasked to pick up the secretary general in Norfolk, Va., where he was participating in a change-of-command ceremony.*  His plan to visit Ottawa was announced Sept. 2 in a statement at NATO headquarters in Brussels .... His earlier musings about Canada staying in the fight drew swift, firm responses from federal cabinet ministers, who insisted the July 2011 deadline remains firm.  *Canadian officials said privately Thursday that the decision to cancel meetings, including one apparently with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, was entirely at the discretion of the secretary general and that Ottawa did not insist that he stay away.  They hinted the change of plans had something to do with next week's resumption of Parliament and the possibility of federal election* ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2009)

If you want proof that “we” have given up then try this, by Sen. Colin Kenny, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Mission+impossible/1981758/story.html


> Mission impossible
> *War cannot be won in Afghanistan. It is time to talk about retreat*
> 
> By Colin Kenny, Citizen Special
> ...



Sen. Kenny was, if not a “cheerleader,” at least not anti-Afghanistan, but he has given up and, I’m guessing most parliamentarians, including most Conservatives, share his views.


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Sep 2009)

Further to E.R. Campbell, the start of a _Torch_ post (with many further links):

Sen. Colin Kenny throws in the Afghan towel/Pelosi pooping 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/sen-colin-kenny-throws-in-afghan.html



> Robert Fowler-heavy, I'd say.
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-873638.html#msg873638
> This piece by the Chair of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence will likely go quite a way to further undermining remaining support for the mission amongst our great and good (policitians and pundits). Sen. Kenny, a Liberal, is the best-informed parliamentarian on military and security issues. He has been a strong and intelligent critic of inadequate government (both Liberal and Conservative) attention and funding in both areas. If he now favours pulling the plug the Canadian herd may really start thundering for the exits...



This is very relevant to the government's attitude:

NATO secretary general cancels trip to Ottawa
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090910/nato_visit_090910/20090910?hub=Canada



> ...
> In Norfolk, Fogh Rasmussen lamented the growing backlash to the war in Western countries.
> 
> "Public discourse on the effort in Afghanistan has started to go in the wrong direction" said a copy of his Sept. 9 speech circulated ahead of time.
> ...



Chickens (or rather not wanting them coming home to roost).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace (11 Sep 2009)

So?  What is the West to do, if we all decide to pull out?  Trust Pakistan and all other neighbouring countries that surround Afghanistan to close the borders and keep all the Taliban and Al Quada locked up within Afghanistan?  Trust Pakistan and all those other nations not to allow insurgents to travel to the West on forged passports?  

Yeah!  Sure.  Just frackin great.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?  What is the West to do, if we all decide to pull out?  Trust Pakistan and all other neighbouring countries that surround Afghanistan to close the borders and keep all the Taliban and Al Quada locked up within Afghanistan?  Trust Pakistan and all those other nations not to allow insurgents to travel to the West on forged passports?
> 
> Yeah!  Sure.  Just frackin great.




The "problem" is that "we," the people, don't ever ask such questions. They are not part of our _calculus_. "We," the people, just *know* - jungle drums, I guess - when we are tired of this, that or the other war and want to "move on" to other, more _exciting_, things.

Those "jungle drums" are, of course, beaten by "opinion makes" in the media, the national _commentariat_/chattering classes and sundry celebrities.


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Sep 2009)

I don't think we can count on Pakistan to do anything of the sort. On the contrary, it is possible that a resurgent Taliban will lead to the splintering of Pakistan. Remember that that unfortunate state already does not have control over large areas of the country. If Pakistan does fail, what will emerge is anyone's guess, but it is unlikely to be anything nice. The effects are likely to be more dangerous in the long run than the return of the Taliban to power. Perhaps in the long run, the real strategic aim has been to prop up the series of incompetent politicians and frustrated generalissimos that have misruled Pakistan.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2009)

And don't forget China. The Chinese have _interests_, maybe even *vital  interests*, in Pakistan and it, and its puppets in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, have _interests_ in Afghanistan, too.

One of China's _interests_ involves trying to keep India off balance and preoccupied with Pakistan. That means that Pakistan, and its nuclear armed military, cannot be allowed to descend into chaos.


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Sep 2009)

What to do _militarily_ in Afstan (usual copyright disclaimer):

What Does 'Securing the People' Mean in Afghanistan?
Joshua Foust
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=4264



> The U.S. is determined to implement a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, and one of the most important concepts of counterinsurgency is securing the people: Insurgents and counterinsurgents alike must appeal to the people they're fighting amongst in order to deny the other popular support.
> 
> But what does it mean to "secure the people" of Afghanistan? Some of the U.S. government's best thinkers about defense policy and counterinsurgency, many of whom cut their teeth on the urban battlefields of Iraq, have finally begun to consider this question. But although Iraq is vastly different from Afghanistan, there seems to be no end to "importing" lessons from Baghdad to Kabul: tribal militias, awakenings, and, most worryingly, a focus on cities.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Sep 2009)

BruceR at _Flit_:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_09_11.html#006525



> ...
> On the home front..one of the strongest politician-defenders of the Canadian military *ever* has said enough's enough. That's significant. So as of today it's official: there's no one left in Canada who thinks this is likely to end well...



But--the start of a post at _Unambiguously Ambidextrous_:

Toronto Star: More Like This Please
http://unambig.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/toronto-star-more-like-this-please/



> James Travers of the Toronto Star pens an uncommonly sensible piece about Afghanistan and the difficulty of seeing the forest for the trees...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Sep 2009)

From CanWest News Service:


> .... *"By 2011, when this military mission ends*, our Canadian soldiers will have served there a decade on the front lines, much longer than during either of the world wars," Harper said at Beechwood Cemetery in Ottawa, which became a national cemetery earlier this year honouring Canada's war dead from all conflicts ....


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Sep 2009)

A post by BruceR at _Flit_ reflecting local knowledge,

Afghan election update
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_09_09.html#006524

and an excellent one by Brian Platt at _The Canada-Afghanistan Blog_:

This Isn't "Another Iran"
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-isnt-another-iran.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Sep 2009)

Paul at _Celestial Junk_:

Afghanistan Naysayers: Ignoring a Sea Change
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2009/09/afghanistan-naysayers-ignoring-sea.html



> ...Some of the more ludicrous reckonings state that because Canada is taking casualties ... we are losing. When, I ask, ever in the history of the world did taking casualties mean one was losing a war? In fact, any student of history will tell you that winning moments in war usually came simultaneously with a time of sustaining maximum casualties. Looking back no further than WW1, WW2, and Korea ... the most critical victories were also times of great sacrifice.
> 
> Most offensive to me, personally, is the attack from some quarters on Afghan civilians (as opposed to Afghan leadership). Afghans don’t want our schools, our hospitals, warm clothing, vaccines, and peace because they are, after all, just barbarians, or so goes the argument. Tell that to the thousands of children risking their lives to attend schools, tell that to those girls who return even after being hopelessly scarred by acid attacks...tell that to Governor General Michaelle Jean...



Terry Glavin:

"We are hurtling toward a Vietnam ending."
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/09/we-are-hurtling-toward-vietnam-ending.html



> Eight years since the horror in New York and Washington forced the civilized world to face up to its obligations in Afghanistan, a recurring and predictable pessimism is abroad in the world's comfortable classes, coinciding, as it absurdly and routinely does, with a revival of pluck and optimism among ordinary Afghans...
> 
> Quite properly, everyone of good will is watching and hoping for the best and cleanest result from the horribly bollocksed Afghan presidential elections, not least the millions of brave Afghans who defied Taliban threats and voted. But can we at least agree to avoid juvenile comparisons with the recent Iranian sham? We might take the time to remember what Iran is, and what it is not. We might also remember what Afghanistan was eight years ago, and what it is now...
> 
> ...



Go figure.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is a thoughtful article on our political propensity to “cut and run:”

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/afghanistan/story.html?id=1990933


> John Ivison: Operation sleepwalk
> *Analysis*
> 
> John Ivison, National Post
> ...




At the risk of repeating myself:

•	Rory Stewart is right – “we” cannot build a modern, democratic Afghan state. Only the Afghans can build what they *want*. What we can and should do is to create the security conditions that allow them to solve their own problems in their own ways;

•	No Canadian government, not Chrétien’s, not Martin’s and not Harper’s, ever *wanted* to succeed in Afghanistan. They all had and still have domestic, partisan political *aims* that always override every *strategic* consideration;  

•	Despite Ivison’s very legitimate demand, we will not hear much about Afghanistan because there is a broad, national consensus that “we’re done here.”


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Sep 2009)

Confident voice of Canadian troops rarely heard in Afghan debate
By Matthew Fisher
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/afghanistan/story.html?id=1989902



> Sapper Alexandre Beaudin-D'Anjou, his face still bloodied and badly swollen one day after a homemade landmine had killed two of his colleagues last week, announced he would answer questions about the awful incident, but only after making a statement.
> 
> In what was an exceptional "cri de coeur" to his countrymen on the home front, the young combat engineer from Quebec City declared: "I want to say that part of the Canadian population negatively views the work that we do here, above all because they don't understand what we do. In my opinion, the majority of the Afghan population benefits from what we do.
> 
> ...



Canadian media watched closely in Afghanistan
Details on stories, interviews, questioning circulated through many levels of government
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/695031



> ...
> *Public affairs officers in Kandahar and their civilian counterparts are often the only ones embedded reporters can ask for interviews or information* [emphasis added]. That position gives them an inside look not only at what stories have been filed, but where reporters are going with their inquiries. The information forms the bulk of the carefully detailed briefing notes filed almost daily.
> 
> The briefings outline which news organizations have reporters in the field, what information they have requested and what stories they are working on.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Sep 2009)

Point,


			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Canadian media watched closely in Afghanistan
> Details on stories, interviews, questioning circulated through many levels of government
> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/695031



Counterpoint
This is news?


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Sep 2009)

Interesting questions from a Canadian officer:
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/blog/blogs/coin/archive/2009/09/10/where-are-the-afghan-inglorious-bastards.aspx



> _USA and USMC Counterinsurgency Center Blog_
> 
> *WHERE ARE THE AFGHAN INGLORIOUS BASTARDS?*
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (14 Sep 2009)

> They are also quite effective at preventing IOs, NGOs and Afghan civil servants from getting out and working with the people. Where are the undercover Afghan Inglorious Bastards, who roll down the road in an old truck either armed to the teeth or armed with radios that talk to a trailing UAV or Attack Helicopter or follow-on truck full of undercover hard men? If a few of these check points were hit, the Taliban or local criminals might be less inclined to use them. This tactic was used quite effectively by Canadian troops in Somalia. Why aren’t we seeing it in Afghanistan?



Because we, the collective West, have become so risk avoidance prone that nothing that can be construed as unfair/controversial/not cricket that upper-upper won't let it happen. This is where future combat leaders of the Afghan community have to step in....to them it's fair game, but right now they have too much on their plate and little reason to risk the ultimate....


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Sep 2009)

This, from the Associated Press:


> Canada will not extend its mission in Afghanistan even if President Barack Obama asks him to when the countries' leaders meet this week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Monday.  Harper spokesman Dimitri Soudas reiterated in a briefing Monday that Canada will withdraw its troops in 2011 .... *"Canada's position is clear," Soudas said. "The military component of the mission ends in 2011."*


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is a report on the forthcoming Harper/Obama “summit:”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/economy-to-dominate-harpers-meeting-with-obama/article1287784/


> Economy to dominate Harper's meeting with Obama
> *But the elephant in the room will be Afghanistan and the cracks in international resolve to back the mission*
> 
> Campbell Clark
> ...




I repeat: the reported electoral fraud is only a lame excuse. Several NATO/ISAF members have poor “democracy” records. The simple fact is that NO Canadian government, neither a Liberal nor a Conservative government, has invested any political capital in “selling” the mission to Canadians. In fact most of the “game” was to try to paint it as “Martin’s war” or “Harper’s war” or, even “Hillier’s war.” The mission was always a political orphan – unloved and unsupported.

Prime Minister Harper did, indeed, find the “exit ramp.” Parliament, representing all Canadians said, “cut and run!”


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Sep 2009)

.... regarding allowing some Afghans who helped Canadians easier access to immigrate to Canada:


> Successful applicants will receive health-care coverage under the Interim Federal Health Program as well as resettlement services similar to what is currently offered to government-assisted refugees, including up to 12 months of income support upon arrival in Canada. *Applicants may apply under this program until the end of the Canadian combat mission in Kandahar in 2011.*



No, this isn't a statement from the mouth of the PM or his spokesperson, but _every_ word of this news release was approved at some point by his team.


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Sep 2009)

So what's ending--the combat mission, the military mission, or the mission at Kandahar?  From Tony at _The Torch_:

Skill Testing Question on Canada's Afghan Mission 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/skill-testing-question-on-canadas.html



> Multiple choice question: What is the future of Canada's military presence in Afghanistan?..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Sep 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> So what's ending--the combat mission, the military mission, or the mission at Kandahar?


The answer?  Yes.


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Sep 2009)

Further to this comment,
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-874636.html#msg874636

a thoughtful post by BruceR at_ Flit_:

Army building: what exactly have we created?
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_09_15.html#006531

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Sep 2009)

Start of a post at _The Torch_:

Afstan mission planning--"Gotcha!"? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/afstan-mission-planning-gotcha.html



> I've been wondering for some time about the effect the lack of clarity about what exactly the CF may or may not do after 2011 (see end of this post) is having on our military's ability to plan properly. If anything further is contemplated the preliminary planning should be well in train. Now. There's just over two years to go and units, e.g., will need assigning since the (very good) training has become a lengthy process. From BruceR at _Flit_:..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Sep 2009)

A letter sent to the _Globe and Mail_ but not published:

Lots of US troops already at Kandahar‏



> Your editorial "Make this summit about Afghanistan" (Sept. 15)
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/make-this-summit-about-afghanistan/article1287815/
> advises Prime Minister Harper to urge President Obama to "support Canadians on the ground in Kandahar" and states that our forces "need support from the Americans".
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (16 Sep 2009)

> - Running away from our promise -
> Winnipeg Free Press
> Editorial
> 16 Sept 09
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Sep 2009)

The more I think of this, the more I think that Communism is winning. They may have torn down the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain, but the effects of the Cold War are with us to this day.
There was no talk of cutting and running in WWI, WWII and Korea.

IMO, some people need to grow a spine, and some people should be told "STFU".


----------



## McG (16 Sep 2009)

The failing came when Parlaiment voted to exit on an arbitrary point in time as opposed to exit on achievement of concrete measureable milestones.


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Sep 2009)

Paul at _Celestial Junk_ digs deep, his conclusions:

The Staggering Implications of Losing in Afghanistan
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2009/09/staggering-implications-of-losing-in.html



> ...
> The implications for our foes are also profound. They can exist comfortably, knowing full well that as long as they don’t cross some magic line ... like bringing down two of the world’s tallest buildings, we will let them be. Our enemies have already figured out that they can become nuclear powers, can kill our soldiers using proxy forces, can meddle in our economies, can meddle in our domestic affairs, can fund political forces within our very borders, can meddle in the affairs of their neighbours, possibly even invade... and we will not lift a finger.
> 
> *Sadly*, the West may once again get its decisive conflict. My son, a serving Canadian soldier in Afghanistan, reminded me recently that we are in Afghanistan partially to avoid just that; a confrontation which will require us to take massive retaliation (think Iran) where Western might is turned against civilians in order to get at the villains. We’ve done it before. How sad, that our pursuit of decadence ( often masquerading as pursuit of health and happiness) just may be the cause of greater loss of life and destruction than anything we could envisage happening in Afghanistan today. It doesn’t take much to imagine the young men and women protesting the Mullah’s in Iran today being incinerated when the West or Israel take revenge for some future beastly crime perpetrated by Iran’s nuclear leadership.
> ...



Osama bin Laden, November, 2001: "...when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse..."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,40750,00.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Sep 2009)

The start of a post at _The Torch_:

The _Globeite_ secret agenda revealed! 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/globeite-secret-agenda-revealed.html



> Stop the war! Peace now! Just in case you hadn't noticed...



Follow the links.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2009)

The _Globe and Mail_’s Margaret Wente is, pretty much, their resident _right winger_ so when she says we are _”willing to have Canadians blown up for two more years ... because no one_ [in parliament]_ wants to broach the subject”_ it means that even the choir, to which many of us have been preaching, has given up.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is a column in which she relies heavily on Janice Gross Stein’s opinion:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-tragedy-of-good-intentions/article1290304/


> The tragedy of good intentions
> *Our model Afghan village shows how to win the battle but lose the war*
> 
> Margaret Wente
> ...




Two points:

1.	Despite Mr. Fowler’s very valid point, Afghanistan *is worthy* of our help. If we have a “responsibility to protect” then, surely, we can and should protect and help the poor, war ravaged Afghans just as much as we can and should protect and help e.g. Africans; and

2.	Stein and Wente are right: we need to fight _al Qaeda_ and its sibling groups, not just the Taliban, and special attention needs to be paid to *stealing* their money and *assassinating* their members – neither being the sorts of things we want to or even should discuss in public.

We (Australians, Brits, Canadians and Americans) have white collar crime specialists and financial experts who can find _al Qaeda_’s money and make it disappear from banks in New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Berlin and Zurich. It would not be exactly a *legal* operation so it needs to be a very SECRET one. Equally we (same folks) have people who can do targeted assassinations all over the world – close up and quietly or remotely. Killing _al Qaeda_ members, not just leaders, is a good way to slow the movement down. Now, targeted assassinations are also something that might stretch our "public" moral code so that, too, needs to be SECRET. SECRET means just that – _managed_ by a very, very few high level bureaucrats without parliamentary/congressional oversight and without consultation with “experts” like Prof. Stein and, mainly, without the knowledge of the media.

But while we are fighting _al Qaeda_ _et al_ we need to keep on helping and protecting the Afghans so they can secure, rebuild and manage their own country. And, while we are doing that, we had better get ready to protect and help in Africa, too.

The right call, for the all those so called “realists,” is to press the government to:

•	Stay in Afghanistan, beyond 2011; and

•	Do as it *promised* – recruit, train and equip tens of thousands of *new* CF members, above and beyond the 67,000± (regulars) and 35,000± (reserves, many on full time service), and get them ready to fight in places other than Afghanistan.

But the “realists” will not do that because they want the PM and his ministers and _Iggy_ and Bob Rae and the top level bureaucrats to return their calls and invite them to their cocktail parties.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Sep 2009)

ER I concur with your assessment, and what should be done. Unfortunately those who can make the call to have those AQ/Taliban terminated with extreme prejudice won't make that call.
I've read some history on the Brit SOE, the US OSS, and the intial formation of the SAS, US Special Forces etc. Some generals and politicians were (and continue to be) squeamish about utilizing these forces to end the lives of legitimate enemy threats and terrorists.


----------



## GAP (17 Sep 2009)

ER...it might get done, but realistically we should never know....

The trouble is the West does not like to be seen as being barbaric animals that murder/assassinate others. The populace is uncomfortable with the idea that if the government et al can do it there, they can do it here.... we have faith they won't, but how would we know if it is secret?

The Israelis have a fearsome reputation of success in this regard, as do a few others, whom we will probably never be able to prove.  It is that fear of success that makes many hesitate before taking on the Israelis and others (eg: Russia with it's swift, brutal retribution history).


----------



## Infanteer (17 Sep 2009)

> Apart from the model village, our soldiers don't get out much. They no longer chase the Taliban. Mostly, they're trapped behind the wire at the base in Kandahar, where IEDs won't get them. There is no technical answer to the roadside bombs, which explode even on what are supposedly the safest roads. Whenever possible, personnel fly by helicopter. Development efforts are increasingly managed from inside the wire – Afghans go in to report, but Canadians don't see for themselves. Outside the model village, they no longer have contact with Afghans.



I'm curious as to where the author got the hard facts for this statement, as I'm tempted to call it dishonest at best....


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> *We (Australians, Brits, Canadians and Americans) have white collar crime specialists and financial experts who can find al Qaeda’s money and make it disappear from banks in New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Berlin and Zurich.* It would not be exactly a *legal* operation so it needs to be a very SECRET one. Equally we (same folks) have people who can do targeted assassinations all over the world – close up and quietly or remotely. Killing _al Qaeda_ members, not just leaders, is a good way to slow the movement down. Now, *targeted assassinations *are also something that might stretch our "public" moral code so that, too, needs to be SECRET. SECRET means just that – _managed_ by a very, very few high level bureaucrats without parliamentary/congressional oversight and without consultation with “experts” like Prof. Stein and, mainly, without the knowledge of the media.



1)  LOVE the idea, and I think there would be public support (even if it is only barely legal).

2)  I like the idea, and could live with it, but it would "stretch our "public" moral code" WAY too far for Canadians to stomach it.



			
				OldSoldier said:
			
		

> I've read some history on the Brit SOE, the US OSS, and the intial formation of the SAS, US Special Forces etc. Some generals and politicians were (and continue to be) squeamish about utilizing these forces to end the lives of legitimate enemy threats and terrorists.


Methinks it's more a POLITICAL concern (for their bosses more than them) than anything else (see 2 above).



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> The trouble is the West does not like to be seen as being barbaric animals that murder/assassinate others ....  The Israelis have a fearsome reputation of success in this regard ....


One doesn't want to become like the enemy, but it doesn't have to be this way - I'm still doing research (and would love to hear more from anyone who knows more), but I understand that the Israelis have in the past, or maybe still do, carry out "internal trials" of people that are on "The List" before doing the deed.  These "internal trials" include a defence counsel for the Listee.
Again, I don't see a public appetite for this in Canada.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Sep 2009)

Milnews, Canadians want to bring a freakin terrorist into their midst....sorry "alleged" terrorist. Not only that, we refuse to deport terrorists. 
Yeah you could say the Canadian public has no appetite for this. :rage:


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Sep 2009)

OldSoldier said:
			
		

> Milnews, Canadians want to bring a freakin terrorist into their midst....sorry "alleged" terrorist. Not only that, we refuse to deport terrorists.


With some "rehabilitated" ones aiming to become lawyers here, no less...


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Sep 2009)

1) Obama plays for time:

Obama: No plans for additional troop increase in Afghanistan
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/16/obama.harper.afghanistan/



> There are no immediate plans to commit more U.S. troops to the ongoing war in Afghanistan, President Obama said Wednesday.
> 
> Speaking to reporters alongside Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Obama said he would consult with U.S. allies before determining a strategy in Afghanistan after last month's elections there.
> 
> ...



Is our prime minister playing for time too (see end here) 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/harpers-us-problem/article1289467/
and is it running out?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/afstan-mission-planning-gotcha.html

2) Marines to Helmand a mistake (no mention of CF at Kandahar or Brits at Helmand)?

The Afghanistan Problem: Why Are We in Helmand?
The military's strategy in Afghanistan has been misguided from the start — but it may be too late for Plan B.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1924324,00.html



> ...not all of the 21,000 additional forces that President Obama authorized for Afghanistan last winter have even arrived in the country yet...the battle plan those troops were asked to execute was devised primarily by General David McKiernan, who was replaced about the time the troops started arriving. McKiernan's plan reflected his experience in conventional warfare: he chose to deploy the troops where the bad guys were — largely in Helmand province on the Pakistani border, home of nearly 60% of the world's opium crop, a place that was firmly in Taliban control. But pursuing conventional warfare in Afghanistan is about as effective as using a football in a tennis match. The Army's new counterinsurgency doctrine says you go where the people are concentrated and protect them, then gradually move into the sectors the bad guys control. That is not what we're doing in Afghanistan. In addition to all the other problems we're facing — the corruption of the Karzai government, the election chaos, the porous Pakistani border — it has become apparent that we're pursuing the wrong military strategy in this frustrating war...
> 
> ...The additional troops were needed immediately to blunt the momentum of the Taliban and also to provide security for the Afghan elections. The trouble was, the troops would have been better deployed in Helmand's neighbor to the east — Kandahar province, especially in Kandahar city and its suburbs. "Kandahar is the center of gravity in this insurgency," says John Nagl, a retired lieutenant colonel who helped write the Army's counterinsurgency doctrine. "It is as important now as Fallujah was in Iraq in 2004."..
> 
> ...



The troops at Helmand are Marines.  I'm not sure they could have been deployed to Kandahar this spring. A US Army combat aviation brigade (ordered deployed under President Bush) was arriving at KAF around the time the Marines were coming to Helmand. At that time there certainly would not have been the facilities at Kandahar to accomodate both the 8,000 new Marines (who have their own aviation) and the Army aviation brigade. I wonder if the Marines alone would not have been too much at that time. And should the aviation brigade been deployed to Helmand instead of KAF? Moreover some 2,000 Marines were already operating in Helmand and it may have seemed most logical to reinforce them. Logistics are important. And very early this year, when the Marine deployment plans were being set, Kandahar may not have seemed to be in too bad a situation. The matter is more complicated than the story suggests.

Lots of related links at the Torch post:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/afstan-obama-plays-for-timehelmand.html

*Update*: More Teutonic gloom an doom:

'The Day Afghanistan Was Lost'
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,649640,00.html



> This week EU observers announced that at least a quarter of the votes cast in Afghanistan's presidential election were suspect. Just like the incumbent Afghan president, German commentators are seeking solutions. But they are also filled with foreboding about the troubled nation's future...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2009)

I missed this earlier in the week because the key phrase was at the bottom of the story:


> Harper made it clear in Washington that the country is not walking away from its commitment: *"Canada is not leaving Afghanistan; Canada will be transitioning from a predominantly military mission to a mission that will be a civilian humanitarian development mission after 2011."
> 
> He said "that transition's already in place."*



Glad to see at least a bit of clarity.


----------



## Neolithium (18 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Equally we (same folks) have people who can do targeted assassinations all over the world – close up and quietly or remotely. Killing _al Qaeda_ members, not just leaders, is a good way to slow the movement down. Now, targeted assassinations are also something that might stretch our "public" moral code so that, too, needs to be SECRET.


Targeted assassinations have proven to be effective to a certain extent in the past (I think Mossad still probably leads the body count above all others)  I suppose my morals are a bit skewed but I'd be more than proud to have CSIS members put two bullets in the back of the head of someone with a silenced pistol before he/she blows innocent people up.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Sep 2009)

Neolithium said:
			
		

> Targeted assassinations have proven to be effective to a certain extent in the past (I think Mossad still probably leads the body count above all others)  I suppose my morals are a bit skewed but I'd be more than proud to have CSIS members put two bullets in the back of the head of someone with a silenced pistol before he/she blows innocent people up.



Methinks you know little to nothing of the CSIS mandate or its personnel.

And given the ones I do know, the result would more likely be two rounds to the front of their foot...


----------



## Neolithium (18 Sep 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Methinks you know little to nothing of the CSIS mandate or its personnel.
> And given the ones I do know, the result would more likely be two rounds to the front of their foot...


The post I was replying to was dealing with hypothetical changes, which would also have to include a change of the CSIS mandate.  Of course we could always just place an order with Israel and send a list to Mossad.  Their mandate is happy to accomodate it, and from what I understand they have a rather broad definition of what they consider a threat to the security of their nation.


----------



## CougarKing (18 Sep 2009)

Another notable article:



> *Afghanistan: Why Efforts to Disarm the Taliban Have Failed*
> Time.com
> 
> By TIM MCGIRK / KABUL Tim Mcgirk / Kabul – 39 mins ago
> ...


----------



## X-mo-1979 (18 Sep 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to where the author got the hard facts for this statement, as I'm tempted to call it dishonest at best....



maybe they were taking to a clerk on the airstrip.As I remember a battle group being outside the "kandahar base" for oh...8 months or so.However it doesnt matter.no one on civi street will notice and base all their opinions on such erroneous false reporting.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to where the author got the hard facts for this statement, as I'm tempted to call it dishonest at best....



And it has been addressed via letters to the editor:


> (....)
> Troops are over the wire
> 
> Having spent the past four months photographing the front lines in Afghanistan, I was appalled to read Margaret Wente’s contention that soldiers “don’t get out much” and “no longer chase the Taliban” (The Tragedy Of Good Intentions – Sept. 17). I’ve covered numerous combat operations this summer and suggest that perhaps Ms. Wente should go “over the wire” to personally witness the mortars, rockets and machine-gun fire from the Taliban that hundreds of Canadian troops experience on a regular basis. Most of the battle group is in the field fighting the insurgency and is not in Deh-e-Bagh or at the main base.
> ...


Nice factoid this one - would have been nice to hear it earlier.


----------



## 40below (18 Sep 2009)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And it has been addressed via letters to the editor:This year, medics at forward operating bases have treated more Afghan victims of violence than at any other stage of the mission.



That statement ties nicely into the best image to cross my desk this week:


----------



## 40below (18 Sep 2009)

Well, OK, Tony - maybe *second* best


----------



## George Wallace (18 Sep 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Methinks you know little to nothing of the CSIS mandate or its personnel.
> 
> And given the ones I do know, the result would more likely be two rounds to the front of their foot...



Their own foot.

It would be news to me if CSIS had any "Licence" let alone a "Licence to Kill".  To the best of my knowledge, they don’t have guns……….So no need for silencers.


----------



## kratz (18 Sep 2009)

Damn, the MSM is using this soldier's personal thoughts against the very reason he died. Granted the quote is second hand from his brother.

CTV.ca



> Fallen soldier thought Afghan mission was 'useless'
> Updated Fri. Sep. 18 2009 1:19 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2009)

And if you want to read the latest sensationalist quote grab in the original language, here's the Le Soleil article in French (with a clunky Google English translation).

If you can't get the dirt first-hand, nothing like getting it from a relative second or third hand...   :rage:

A bit of historical advice here, here and here from a previous situation where words out of someone else's mouth were bandied about carelessly by the media.


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Sep 2009)

Regarding Mr Palu's letter above (these troops are certainly outside the wire):

Combat video of Candian Army mentoring ANA and Afghan police
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/combat-video-of-candian-army-mentoring.html

In any event the US Army will also be outside the wire in much of the rest of Kandahar province, and also doing a great deal in the city itself. Canadians, pundits, politicians, and the public, should really wake up to the fact that success, failure, or something in between, at Kandahar are now beyond the hands of the CF. Though we can still make a significant, more concentrated and--one hopes--effective contribution as a cog in a much greater wheel.

So why the mad rush to the exits, now that the, er, cavalry has arrived?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Sep 2009)

Excerpts from an exceptionally cogent analysis by BruceR (returned from a tour as a Canadian Army mentor) at _Flit_--the whole a must-read, first part deals with the problems of operating with the ANA:

So how did it come to this?
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_09_18.html#006535



> ...
> 
> Looking back (see graph, above), one can see now mid-2005 was the inflection point.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an important contribution to the debate:

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090919.BLATCH19ART2228/TPStory/TPComment/


> Rather than doom and gloom, let's focus on all the successes
> 
> CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD
> 
> ...




A few rather random thoughts follow, based, mainly, on conversations in which I participated over the past few days here in Ottawa.

There appears to be, at the very least, a _gentlemen’s agreement_ between the Conservatives and Liberals (and maybe the _Bloc_ and the _Dippers_, too) to NOT discuss or debate Afghanistan because everyone understands that Canadians are, simply, tired of the issues, tired of the war, tired of the casualties and no one will “gain” anything by talking about it. That may be why the proposed military combat “demonstration” was cancelled.

No matter how “shocked and frustrated” Gen Natynczyk might be when “outsiders” (like most _Good Grey Globe_ social/political columnists) make uninformed errors that reach and _inform_ hundreds of thousands of Canadians, the official position in Ottawa is to grin and bear it. The Minister’s response (below) is all we are likely to get.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/sept-18-letters-to-the-editor/article1291919/


> Margaret Wente cannot have it both ways by saying Canadian soldiers don’t get out from their base much in Afghanistan, but are continuing to suffer casualties because they are getting out.
> 
> Our troops are out, every day, helping people help themselves under challenging circumstances. They are training the Afghan army so Afghans can stand up for themselves. Our soldiers are doing so proudly, effectively and bravely.
> 
> ...



Note that Minister MacKay did not directly counter the _canard_ that our forces are hiding behind the wire when the reverse is clearly and demonstrably true. Canadians do not want to hear that our soldiers are more _engaged_ with the enemy than ever. Canadians do not want a fighting army. They want blue berets and sand bags.

The *real* story is that Canada held, just barely, the only really important _battleground_ in the only *real* war on al Qaeda while a *strategically inept US establishment* pissed away its resources and its global political capital on a useless “war” in Iraq. For six years we, and pretty much we alone, dashed back and forth around Kandahar province, keeping our finger in the dike. We, Canadians, “saved” NATO/ISAF’s Afghan mission, almost single handed. And we paid a price. Too high a price for too many Canadians – the overwhelming majority of whom never, really, “felt” the cost. Now that the US has, finally, brought almost enough forces – the one thing we never had because successive Liberal and Conservative and Liberal and Conservative governments destroyed and then failed, miserably, to rebuild the armed forces – to actually ‘win” rather than just hold the line, we, Canadians at large, are _tired_ of the war and we want to “cut and run.” It is exactly the wrong time. It is like withdrawing from the Second World war just after the Normandy invasion. It is bad policy; it is government policy; it is parliament’s policy. Canadians are badly served by this parliament: all of it.

The anti-war “movement” is weak. It only exists, at all, because most of the media are, or want to imagine themselves as being  _anti-establishment_, even as they suckle at the _establishment_’s teats, and being anti-establishment means being anti-government and being anti-government means opposing e.g. Afghanistan even as the same intellectually inconsistent “journalists” support Responsibility to Protect, which is what we are doing in Kandahar. Most Canadian journalists cannot find their asses (where their brains reside) with both hands.

The Conservative government, and the Liberal opposition, are cowards and, because we are in “system” that is unable to produce stable, majority governments, they let short term political advantage trump good policy time after time after time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2009)

Not every Canadian journalist cries _mission impossible_. A few, Matthew Fisher being one, tell a different, hopeful story, like this one reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Canadian+troops+armchair+critics/2011338/story.html


> Canadian troops vs. armchair critics
> There could not be two more differing views on what Canada is achieving in Afghanistan
> 
> By Matthew Fisher, Canwest News Service
> ...




That’s the *real* story by a Canadians journalist who actually goes outside the wire. Most Canadian journalists never leave Kandahar Airfield because they are on a “death watch.” The only way they are guaranteed a “lead” story is when a Canadian is killed. Most, almost all, Canadian journalists, have no interest in telling Canadians anything at all about Afghanistan (unless it is related to perceived "failures" to accomplish what we set out to do) or what Canadian soldiers are doing. They, the journalists, are in Afghanistan to get their “by line” or their voice “above the fold” or on the “lead” story.

The lead stories, above the fold, on the print edition of today’s _Ottawa Citizen_ are:

Sex abuse and silenced exposed; and

 Soldier faces court martial in death of injured Afghan.

It was an editorial decision to put the “bad news,” the news that makes the military and the mission look bad on the front page and to consign Fisher’s “good news” to the back pages an "inside" section and "below the fold." That’s how the _Citizen_ decided to “inform” Canadians. It’s their *right* to do that; freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses; but please don’t anyone offer me any *BS* about journalists “informing” Canadians – most journalists try to “make opinion” or to “lead” it and the opinions most of them want to make are, broadly, anti-establishment, anti-government and anti-military.



Edit: I corrected the "positioning" of the article. It is on the front page, but "below the fold" of the Saturday Observer section of the paper.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Sep 2009)

Fisher's piece was good and refreshing, but I have a minor quibble:



> They both lauded Canada for its model village project, which is being expanded at this moment from its base in Dand District, southwest of Kandahar. It is now being copied by other armies, most notably by the Stryker battalions.



It isn't being copied by the Americans - they used it Iraq just as we were stumbling onto the COIN fad (although in an urban setting).  It has roots in the Marine CAP in Vietnam which was taken from British approaches in Malaysia.

Let's just not get caught in the idea that we are inventing counter-insurgency here....


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Sep 2009)

Two _Torch_ posts:

Afstan, or anti-Wente 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/afstan-or-anti-wente.html

*Kandahar province: Endless US Army orbat fun* 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/kandahar-province-endless-us-army-orbat.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Petard (20 Sep 2009)

Senator Kenny on Question period today, again urging for debate on the current Afghanistan mission.
Lew McKenzie tried to offer some counter to the Senator's basic idea, which is to quit now.

So he wants debate?  Who all is he saying should deal with this? Nobody? What happens then should the West abandon Afghanistan (just as it did in the 90's)?
Critics of this mission need to look hard, real hard, at what the consequences of "giving up" really means. 

This article by Kate Heartfiled in the Citizen at least tries to bring that out, as opposed to this simple "ohh war is terrible" bleating going on.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/ready+quit/2002561/story.html

If there is a hush in this land as Senator Kenny suggests, perhaps its because the public trusts the opinions of soldiers enduring this mission more than those of politicians, and they've said to the public that as diffcult as this mission is we said we'd stick it out and we need to, and we will. But by 2011, we probably will not be able to do anymore  heavylifting for awhile, even the CLS has acknowledged that by then the Army will need a refit, but that by itself doesn't mean quit now, or even later. I think the public senses the truth in that, and the truth in Heartfield's statement in the article: _War comes with a terrible price, but so does retreat_. So maybe the public does not see any need to tear apart what we are accomplishing right now, who would that serve?

If there is something to debate, debate the next bound, the post 2011 bound, not this one we are in the middle of.


----------



## TCBF (21 Sep 2009)

- I can't get too excited about people claiming their KIA sons and daughters did not believe in the mission.  The dead served honourably and did their duty - that is what counts.  We all know of people serving in Afghanistan now who don't like the mission, but they do their jobs and do them well.

- Now, as for the people serving who try to skate out of a deployment because they don't believe in it - release is the best solution, and off the merit list and back on it below all of the people who went is the next best solution.  We want to promote deployers, not avoiders.  The avoiders can sweep the floors.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a report on Gen. McChrystal’s *demand* (not too strong a word, I think) for both more troops and a change in tactics:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-commander-warns-of-failure-in-afghanistan/article1295096/


> U.S. commander warns of 'failure' in Afghanistan
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A few points, as I read this:

•	More troops, alone, will not help. McChrystal is asking for troops will not hide behind the wire. He does not need more _Euro-tourists_ in the North. He needs combat troops, trained in and willing/able to use (risky) COIN techniques, in the South;

•	There are only a handful of countries likely/politically able to send those kinds of troops. That little list includes Australia, Britain, Canada and, of course, America;

•	Most countries, including Australia, Britain, Canada and America are growing more and more _tired_ of this war. Their populations do not understand the nature of COIN and they are not inclined to learn. Who can blame them, in the middle of a financial meltdown? Europe has never liked this operation and it is, across the board, casualty averse; and

•	This appears to mirror what several Canadians generals and diplomats have been saying – just as Canada hardens its own “cut and run” position for 2011.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (21 Sep 2009)

"America's top commander in Afghanistan warns that more troops are needed there within the next year or the nearly 8-year-old war "will likely result in failure," according to a copy of a 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.


Gen. Stanley McChrystal, right, arrives at a U.S. base in Logar Province, Afghanistan, last month.

 "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible," U.S. and NATO commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal said in the document, according to the Post.

Bob Woodward of the Post -- who wrote the article -- called it "a striking thing for a general to say to the secretary of defense and the commander-in-chief."

McChrystal "really takes his finger and puts it in their eye, 'Deliver or this won't work,'" Woodward told CNN's "American Morning" on Monday. "He says if they don't endorse this full counterinsurgency strategy, don't even give me the troops because it won't work."

More on link http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/21/afghanistan.mcchrystal/index.html

With the call for more troops, particularly from NATO, it'll be interesting to see if the 2011 pull out date turns out to be like the 2009 one....


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2009)

Also discussed here.

Unlike Woodward, I don't think it is especially "striking" thing for a general to his political masters. It is *frank*, to be sure, but maybe it is time to _speak truth to power_.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Sep 2009)

Kudos to the _Washington Post_ for sharing the document itself (66pg 1.6MB PDF):
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf?hpid=topnews


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Sep 2009)

Conclusion of a _Torch_ post:

Afstan: McChrystal report hits the fan/Obama changing position?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/afstan-mcchryal-report-hits-fanobama.html



> ...
> So now it's effectively [for President Obabam} just about al Qaeda, and basically forget about Afstan itself, its people, and what the Taliban resurgent might do there. Forget about any moral obligation to the country that might result from having been instrumental in forcing out the Taliban regime in 2001. And forget about "common security"; note that there is *no mention* of NATO or Allies in the answers to David Gregory.
> 
> What a scaling down of goals and reasons. And what an excuse to limit any force increases.



And from Paul at _Celestial Junk_:

Decision Time Afghanistan 
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2009/09/decision-time-afghanistan.html

_When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse. ~ OBL_



> Now is the time that Obama shows whether or not he can earn the title, Commander-in-Chief. The leak of McChrystal's report is high stakes politics in which Afghanistan is now made Obama's baby ... if he doesn't comply with military requests, a loss in Afghanistan will be on his shoulders. Whether or not this the reality is irrelevant, it will be the perception...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Sep 2009)

Excerpts from a _Torch_ post:

Afstan: Sen. Kenny defends his defeatism 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/sen-kenny-defends-his-defeatism.html



> I think the Senator's criticism of our politicians is bang-on.
> http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/697977
> I also think he has over-reacted out of personal frustration and gone overboard...
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Sep 2009)

The start and conclusion of a very helpful riposte by BruceR at _Flit_; if only our major media had pieces like this--please read the whole thing for the great detail and excellent analysis:

On that Wente column
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_09_21.html#006537



> The Torch is an amazing resource, and a great Canadian milblog. But it can get a little defensive about the military at times (as indeed, can I). Case in point today, reacting to a Margaret Wente Globe and Mail column that was critical of the military last week:
> 
> "Ms Wente might wish to read this..."
> 
> ...



Let the dialectic continue.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Sep 2009)

The _Torch_:

What Afstan is all about 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/

And the basis from Terry Glavin:

Guns, butter, words, deeds and Afghanistan: Talk sense or shut up, go deep or go home.
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/09/words-and-deeds-in-afstan-talk-sense-or.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, are some details of Canadian reactions to Gen McChrystal’s report:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/us-debate-doesnt-change-canadas-afghan-plans/article1296427/


> U.S. debate doesn't change Canada's Afghan plans
> *In spite of a call for a troop surge, Ottawa intends to focus its effort in the war zone on a ‘humanitarian, development mission'*
> 
> Campbell Clark
> ...




First: kudos to Sen. Wallin for telling the truth: _“To try and predict where we're going to be in the summer of 2011 is foolhardy,”_ she said. _“We have no idea.”_

Second: Prof Paris’ question, _“I think it's very unlikely that we'll have the 1,000-member battle group, which is kind of the core of our military contribution,”_ he said. _“But the question is, if the battle group goes away, does everybody go away in the Canadian Forces?”_ is pertinent.

My “answer” to Prof. Paris is:

1.	Withdraw the battle group, _per se_, from Kandahar province; and

2.	Add more than one, maybe enlarged, Operational Mentoring and Liaison Teams (OMLTs or _omlettes_) – perhaps in Kandahar, which allows us to use our existing (but hopefully reduced) logistics base, or, perhaps in another province, which probably would involve moving a (reduced) Canadian logistics support base (_Tim Horton’s_ and all!) and the PRT, too. The _omlettes_ are a key component of what Gen McChrystal is talking about, as I read it; we can *raise* our profile even as we *draw down* our numbers.  

Unfortunately the “bill” for the OMLTs is paid in the “currency” of experienced officers and NCOs – who are in short supply, especially since Prime Minister Harper’s government/DND has not (yet) recruited the tens of thousands of new people that were *promised*.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Sep 2009)

_Washington Post _editorial sees the Obama shift too:

Wavering on Afghanistan?
President Obama seems to have forgotten his own arguments for a counterinsurgency campaign.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/21/AR2009092103086.html



> ...it was a little startling to hear Mr. Obama suggest in several televised interviews on Sunday that he had second thoughts. "We are in the process of working through that strategy," said on CNN." The first question is . . . are we pursuing the right strategy?" On NBC he said, "if supporting the Afghan national government and building capacity for their army and securing certain provinces advances that strategy" of defeating al-Qaeda, "then we'll move forward. But if it doesn't, then I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan."
> 
> ...Some in and outside the administration have argued for a more limited strategy centered on striking al-Qaeda's leaders, giving up the more ambitious political and economic tasks built into the counterinsurgency doctrine.
> 
> ...



Meanwhile Gen. McCrystal is, er, muzzled:

Pentagon Delays Troop Call
Request for Additional Forces on Hold as White House Seeks Review of Afghan Strategy
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125350906414427191.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Sep 2009)

_Torch_ post:

Afstan: CF going to the people/Similar US approach? More or fewer Brits? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/afstan-cf-going-to-peoplemore-of-fewer.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2009)

The _Good Grey Globe_’s resident expert in Canadian domestic politics, Jeffrey Simpson, feels a periodic compulsion to demonstrate that his (acknowledged) expertise does not extend very far out of his regular lanes. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is his latest demonstration of his own failure to comprehend _grand strategy_, foreign policy, military matters or Afghanistan:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/what-did-nato-expect-in-afghanistan-anyway/article1296303/


> What did NATO expect in Afghanistan, anyway?
> *Make a new plan, Stan – it will take more than a couple of years to turn this war around*
> 
> Jeffrey Simpson
> ...



Simpson starts off on the right foot. He recognized, as most Canadians do not, that we, Canadians and NATO and ISAF (which is NATO ++) are all there, in Afghanistan, to do what the *United Nations* asked told us to do in UNSC Res. 1386 (2001) when it said:

---------------------------
_The Security Council,_

_Reaffirming_ its previous resolutions on Afghanistan, in particular its resolutions 1378 (2001) of 14 November 2001 and 1383 (2001) of 6 December 2001,

1.	_Authorizes_, as envisaged in Annex 1 to the Bonn Agreement, the establishment for 6 months of an International Security Assistance Force to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the personnel of the United Nations can operate in a secure environment;

2.	_Calls upon_ Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to the International Security Assistance Force, and invites those Member States to inform the leadership of the Force and the Secretary-General;


3.	_Authorizes_ the Member States participating in the International Security Assistance Force to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate; and (down near the bottom of a list of 10 _authorizes_, _calls upons_ and _decides_)

8. _Stresses_ that the expenses of the International Security Assistance Force will be borne by the participating Member States concerned.
---------------------

Then he goes right off track by saying, _“The Americans alone must implement Gen. McChrystal's strategy.”_ Now it *may* (or may not) be true that, as he says:

•	_”Canada will end its military effort in 2011.”_
     That’s a *maybe* because it is not at all certain;

•	_”Italians are already clamouring for their mission to end, after losing six soldiers.”_
     That’s true, but what McChrystal is seeking is unlikely to be provided by _most_ Europeans so it’s probably a red herring;

•	_”Germany certainly isn't going to up its ante.”_
     Also true but it’s another red herring.

•	_”The Dutch, Danes and British ... won't be doing more. Nor will the Australians.”_
     This is not, necessarily, true if, *Big IF* the US does decide to adopt, at least, Gen McChrystal’s _operational_ proposals which are very, very similar to what Canadian (and other) combat leaders have been recommending.

What is undeniably true is that America cannot and will not go it alone. The international community will come, partially, on side.

_”What is winning?”_ Simpson asks and then goes on to raise issues that have little to do with winning. Canada has, pretty consistently, set out three aims for “winning:”

1. To enhance our own security by preventing Afghanistan from being used as a base by _al Qaeda_ (which means “base,” by the way). *We have probably accomplished that – even though it is not, yet, a sure thing.* Sometimes the aim has been expressed as something like ‘telling other failing states that they must not welcome _al Qaeda_ or like groups because we will punish them as we have punished the Taliban.’ *Given the goings on in Somalia, we have probably failed at that.* 

2.	To enhance our own reputation by playing a meaningful, even leading role in the “war on terror” which was also “authorized” by the UNSC in Res. 1368 which said, _”The Security Council ... 3. _Calls_ on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;_ [and]  4. Calls also _on the international community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 of 19 October 1999.”_ *We have accomplished part* a small part *of that task but our reputation as a reliable “partner” in global security matters was so badly damaged in the 1970s that we will have to do much, much more before we ever regain anything like the stature we enjoyed – and used to our economic advantage – in the 1950s and ‘60s.*

3.	To help the Afghans. *We have done a lot to help. Simpson says that Afghanistan* _” has absorbed the largest amount of Canada's foreign aid, without much of a dent being noticed.”_ *That is unmitigated crap as almost everyone who has ever been to Afghanistan (Simpson has not) says, over and over again, and is the clearest indicator yet that Simpson is uninformed, out of his lanes and, probably, blowing smoke in an effort to provide partisan political support for the anti-Harper parties. There is more to do, to help, but we have accomplished and are accomplishing a lot.*

One final point: Simpson says, _”As for cutting off the insurgents' supplies of money, how does this get done when the sources are in Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf, Pakistan and the poppy fields of the south?”_ Once again, he demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of how things are done. We need to and we can and we should find and then steal the _Jihadists_ money while it is in banks in Berlin, London, New York, Paris, Toronto, Singapore, Sydney and Zurich and while it is in electronic _transit_ between Muslim Muslim money transfer companies. This is not quite a *legal* tactic but it can be done and it would be effective.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2009)

See here, please, for another issue (W2I) that is loosely related to Afghanistan.

Some of the W2I members are _skeptical_, at least, about Afghanistan where we _have_ taken R2P to its logical conclusion by _intervening_ with the *aim* of rescuing Afghanistan from failure.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_ is an excellent piece that illustrates that Canadians are out front, *doing*, already, what Gen McChrystal is _recommending_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Dying+battle/2018399/story.html


> Dying in battle
> 
> By Bruce Ward, The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> ...




And to think that a majority of Canadians wants to bring the battle group, at least, home – just as they are showing NATO how to fight and win this war. For shame!


----------



## observor 69 (22 Sep 2009)

Let me note that General Petraeus was a major advocate of the "new" American COIN tactic of "protect the people" which was used successfully in Iraq. And of course Gen. McCrystal reflects the strategy of his boss.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Sep 2009)

Excerpts from some very astute observations by BruceR at _Flit_, plus *text of McChrystal report* (via Bruce's post):

About Deh-e Bagh
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_09_22.html#006540



> The Star, today:
> http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/699002
> 
> _He may not have mentioned it, but McChrystal appears to have had Canada in mind when he spelled out his winning conditions. Just a few months into his job and in deep contemplation about the state of the war, McChrystal travelled in July to Deh-e-Bagh, a tiny village south of Kandahar city that the Canadian military has made the centre of its counter-insurgency effort.
> ...



Redacted McChrystal report:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf?hpid=topnews

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson (22 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, are some details of Canadian reactions to Gen McChrystal’s report:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/us-debate-doesnt-change-canadas-afghan-plans/article1296427/
> 
> ...



(1) Correct.  OMLTs are expensive - in many ways, more so than a BG.  Finding the skillsets is difficult - and those skillsets are also in demand in other parts of the CF.  Since the CF is not on a war footing, it can be a challenge to prioritize personnel for such taskings (with over 100 Infantry LCols in the Regular Force, it should not be difficult, yet it is).

(2) Growth promised was in the thousands, nto the tens of thousands.  Timelines ahve been extended, and the CF itself has been to blame for some delays, not defining what it wants to grow in a timely manner.  Insetad, good, cautios staff proceeded slowly, providing commanders with a reserve of positions to decide upon later, and avoided hard choices until the end - and avoided identifyign the more training intensive requiremetns unti tlhe end.  Even such expansion would not address shortfalls for OMLTs and toher such initiatives, as growth is bey definition new intake; to grow a Sgt will take a decade at least - so, we accel;erate promotions for some and hope that the training and experiential deltas that ensue will not have too harsh an impact.

Unfortunately, much of our senior military leadership does not consider the personnel system or impacts on it when they make decisions - as adjudant-general postings tend to be career limiting, we do not always get the best and brightest posted into the N/G/A1 worlds.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...
> (2) Growth promised was in the thousands, nto the tens of thousands ...




I admit to being a wee, tiny bit hyperbolic, for effect, but, in 2006, the Conservatives did *promise* 75,000 regulars and 35,000 reserves and that's more than just "thousands" that's at least one "ten thousand," closer to two in 2006.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Sep 2009)

Rrom Bill Roggio at the _Long War Journal_:

McChrystal to resign if not given resources for Afghanistan
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2009/09/mcchrystal_to_resign_if_not_gi.php
   


> Within 24 hours of the leak of the Afghanistan assessment to The Washington Post, General Stanley McChrystal's team fired its second shot across the bow of the Obama administration. According to McClatchy, military officers close to General McChrystal said he is prepared to resign if he isn't given sufficient resources (read "troops") to implement a change of direction in Afghanistan:
> 
> "Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn't ready for it.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Gunner98 (23 Sep 2009)

What kind of a message will that send to troops, Afghans and NATO?

...perhaps it is time to give a General from another country a chance to lead ISAF rather than watch the US merry-go-round that is the ISAF Commander's office.  As for the other countries and troops, can they resign and go home if they are not given sufficient resources?  As for Afghans - will this be a good example of how a "responsible government" and its military interact?


----------



## Journeyman (23 Sep 2009)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> As for the other countries and troops, can they resign and go home if they are not given sufficient resources?


The senior leader certainly can. There have been several examples (and, sadly, many more of opportunities passed up) where generals have fallen on their swords for having the courage of their convictions.



> What kind of a message will that send to troops, Afghans and NATO?


I believe it shows that McChrystal is willing to risk his career, fighting the war as he sees best for the _Afghan_ people (ie - accepting higher US casualties), rather than just be another set of stars in the "US merry-go-round that is the ISAF Commander's office."


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Sep 2009)

A post at _The Torch_:

ObamaClinton wobbling on Afstan/Guess who got there first?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/obamaclinton-wobbling-on-afstanguess.html

Mark
Ottawa

*Update* at the post:



> The opinion of a perspicacious reader on Gen. McChrystal's position:
> 
> "F...... right he should resign if he doesn’t get the resources: would you ask soldiers serving under you to risk their lives in a fight the politicians aren’t committed to?"



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## TCBF (23 Sep 2009)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> As for Afghans - will this be a good example of how a "responsible government" and its military interact?



- Yes. A very good example of how a responsible government and it's military act. Or a responsible government and it's senior civil servants, or it's university presidents, etc.


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Sep 2009)

From BruceR at _Flit_:

On the Kagan estimate
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_09_23.html#006541



> The Kagan husband-and-wife team have put together an estimate on how many troops would be needed for successful COIN in Afghanistan.
> http://www.irantracker.org/related-threats/comprehensive-strategy-afghanistan-afghanistan-force-requirements
> 
> It's certainly worth a read. Obviously some of its figures are a little questionable -- I'm not clear on how they came up with 2 Canadian battalions currently in Kandahar, but never mind that -- but as a maximalist upper estimate it's pretty good.
> ...



Keep going, the UPDATE is particularly, er, revealing. 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Sep 2009)

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/09/23/f-rfa-stewart.html


Interesting piece about the command structure in Afghanistan. What do you guys think?


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Sep 2009)

Excerpts from a _Torch_ post:

Afstan: The McCrystal watch continues 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/afstan-mccrystal-watch-continues.html



> ...
> So Gen. Petraeus and Adm. Mullen are on Gen. McChystal's side. Moving towards a real showdown between the brass hats and frock coats?
> http://books.google.ca/books?id=SruMeCBkw1oC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=%22brass+hats%22+frock+coats&source=bl&ots=jKDBLGH0B2&sig=hzD-x8K24cYVre-SkyGhEHaXLGc&hl=en&ei=oWu7SpfzE9LGlAe5mO3WDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=%22brass%20hats%22%20frock%20coats&f=false
> Things might get pretty serious...
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Sep 2009)

Kilo_302: The Torch has been on command problems for some time:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/08/afstan-us-deputy-commander-lt-gen.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/afstan-us-takes-charge-for-rough-times.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/more-unity-of-command-for-us-forces-in.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/10/afstan-new-us-command-structure.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Sep 2009)

Start of a _Torch_ post:

"COMISAF's Initial Assessment ...Commander, United States Forces - Afghanistan/International Security Assistance Force, Afghanistan"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/comisafs-initial-assessment-commander.html



> AKA the McChrystal report.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/21/AR2009092100110.html
> It isn't about numbers as such, it's about how to do the job. Numbers nonetheless are important. Media and politicians do not seem to have really grasped how revolutionary the assessment is. It is a real "state paper" as the British once described such documents.
> http://books.google.ca/books?id=mhsYAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA472&lpg=PA472&dq=%22state+paper%22+british+government&source=bl&ots=BrU3lpAXea&sig=jI-lfJso-7pwWXmi5JJshGpMf3I&hl=en&ei=Aq27StjjI4HZlAeXnoikDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11#v=onepage&q=%22state%20paper%22%20british%20government&f=false
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Sep 2009)

One has sympathized with Sen. Colin Kenny's desire that our politicians would discuss the Afghan situation seriously for the benefit of the public. 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/sen-kenny-defends-his-defeatism.html
The problem is that they just won't. Brian Platt at _The Canada-Afghanistan Blog_:

CKNW, Afghanistan, And Our Terrible Politicians
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/2009/09/cknw-afghanistan-and-our-terrible.html



> I attended a CKNW radio show today at the Afghan Horsemen restaurant, where they were doing a live town hall discussion on Canada and Afghanistan. Their interviews included a Canadian soldier, an Afghan-Canadian, and a poli-sci prof at SFU--but also Terry Glavin,
> http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/
> who closed the show with a magnificent spiel that cut through all the bullshit and left us in speechless awe. The fact that Terry only got three minutes to speak out of a 2-hour show is criminal.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa

*Update*: From "Comments":
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3136739077337492229&postID=6108651331353742958



> ...
> milnews.ca said...
> 
> P.S. - You were right about Terry's bit. Here's an .mp3 of his summation as a stand-alone - great radio! Well done TGG
> http://milnewstbay.pbworks.com/f/Terry-Glavin-Closing-Christy_Clark_Show_-_Wed_Sept_23.mp3


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Sep 2009)

Start of a _Torch_ post:

Afstan: British general resigns
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/afstan-british-general-resigns.html



> There appear to be tensions between senior US military figures and top civilians (but Gen. McChrystal has said he has "not considered resigning at all"), and ditto in the UK (see end of this post regarding both countries).
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/afstan-mccrystal-watch-continues.html
> 
> Now a British Army general with considerable Afghan experience has thrown in the towel...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (25 Sep 2009)

Long post from Micheal Yon WRT UK Media Ops in Helmand province. I suspect there is more than a little truth to that assessment with the other ISAF forces as well (yes, including ours).

If Media Ops are really that clueless, no wonder we have such a hard time getting the public and Parliament behind us.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/bullshit-bob.htm


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Sep 2009)

Start and conclusion of a _Torch_ post:

Obama and the Generals, and Admirals 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-and-generals-and-admirals.html



> Further to these posts,
> 
> *Afstan: The McCrystal watch continues*
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/afstan-mccrystal-watch-continues.html
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2009)

Prof. Sean Maloney (RMC) has published a new book with some prescriptions. I have posted a review here but I have not yet had a chance to read it.


----------



## observor 69 (27 Sep 2009)

More thought on Obama's choices on Afghanistan.
New York Times LINK

September 27, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Obama at the Precipice 
By FRANK RICH
THE most intriguing, and possibly most fateful, news of last week could not be found in the health care horse-trading in Congress, or in the international zoo at the United Nations, or in the Iran slapdown in Pittsburgh. It was an item tucked into a blog at ABCNews.com. George Stephanopoulos reported that the new “must-read book” for President Obama’s war team is “Lessons in Disaster” by Gordon M. Goldstein, a foreign-policy scholar who had collaborated with McGeorge Bundy, the Kennedy-Johnson national security adviser, on writing a Robert McNamara-style mea culpa about his role as an architect of the Vietnam War. 

Bundy left his memoir unfinished at his death in 1996. Goldstein’s book, drawn from Bundy’s ruminations and deep new research, is full of fresh information on how the best and the brightest led America into the fiasco. “Lessons in Disaster” caused only a modest stir when published in November, but The Times Book Review cheered it as “an extraordinary cautionary tale for all Americans.” The reviewer was, of all people, the diplomat Richard Holbrooke, whose career began in Vietnam and who would later be charged with the Afghanistan-Pakistan crisis by the new Obama administration.

Holbrooke’s verdict on “Lessons in Disaster” was not only correct but more prescient than even he could have imagined. This book’s intimate account of White House decision-making is almost literally being replayed in Washington (with Holbrooke himself as a principal actor) as the new president sets a course for the war in Afghanistan. The time for all Americans to catch up with this extraordinary cautionary tale is now. 

Analogies between Vietnam and Afghanistan are the rage these days. Some are wrong, inexact or speculative. We don’t know whether Afghanistan would be a quagmire, let alone that it could remotely bulk up to the war in Vietnam, which, at its peak, involved 535,000 American troops. But what happened after L.B.J. Americanized the war in 1965 is Vietnam’s apocalyptic climax. What’s most relevant to our moment is the war’s and Goldstein’s first chapter, set in 1961. That’s where we see the hawkish young President Kennedy wrestling with Vietnam during his first months in office.

The remarkable parallels to 2009 became clear last week, when the Obama administration’s internal conflicts about Afghanistan spilled onto the front page. On Monday The Washington Post published Bob Woodward’s account of a confidential assessment by the top United States and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, warning that there could be “mission failure” if more troops aren’t added in the next 12 months. In Wednesday’s Times White House officials implicitly pushed back against the leak of McChrystal’s report by saying that the president is “exploring alternatives to a major troop increase in Afghanistan.”

As Goldstein said to me last week, it’s “eerie” how closely even these political maneuvers track those of a half-century ago, when J.F.K. was weighing whether to send combat troops to Vietnam. Military leaders lobbied for their new mission by planting leaks in the press. Kennedy fired back by authorizing his own leaks, which, like Obama’s, indicated his reservations about whether American combat forces could turn a counterinsurgency strategy into a winnable war. 

Within Kennedy’s administration, most supported the Joint Chiefs’ repeated call for combat troops, including the secretaries of defense (McNamara) and state (Dean Rusk) and Gen. Maxwell Taylor, the president’s special military adviser. The highest-ranking dissenter was George Ball, the undersecretary of state. Mindful of the French folly in Vietnam, he predicted that “within five years we’ll have 300,000 men in the paddies and jungles and never find them again.” In the current administration’s internal Afghanistan debate, Goldstein observes, Joe Biden uncannily echoes Ball’s dissenting role. 

Though Kennedy was outnumbered in his own White House — and though he had once called Vietnam “the cornerstone of the free world in Southeast Asia” — he ultimately refused to authorize combat troops. He instead limited America’s military role to advisory missions. That policy, set in November 1961, would only be reversed, to tragic ends, after his death. As Bundy wrote in a memo that year, the new president had learned the hard way, from the Bay of Pigs disaster in April, that he “must second-guess even military plans.” Or, as Goldstein crystallizes the overall lesson of J.F.K.’s lonely call on Vietnam strategy: “Counselors advise but presidents decide.”

Obama finds himself at that same lonely decision point now. Though he came to the presidency declaring Afghanistan a “war of necessity,” circumstances have since changed. While the Taliban thrives there, Al Qaeda’s ground zero is next-door in nuclear-armed Pakistan. Last month’s blatantly corrupt, and arguably stolen, Afghanistan election ended any pretense that Hamid Karzai is a credible counter to the Taliban or a legitimate partner for America in a counterinsurgency project of enormous risk and cost. Indeed, Karzai, whose brother is a reputed narcotics trafficker, is a double for Ngo Dinh Diem, the corrupt South Vietnamese president whose brother also presided over a vast, government-sanctioned criminal enterprise in the early 1960s. And unlike Kennedy, whose C.I.A. helped take out the Diem brothers, Obama doesn’t have a coup in his toolbox. 

Goldstein points out there are other indisputable then-and-now analogies as well. Much as Vietnam could not be secured over the centuries by China, France, Japan or the United States, so Afghanistan has been a notorious graveyard for the ambitions of Alexander the Great, the British and the Soviets. “Some states in world politics are simply not susceptible to intervention by the great powers,” Goldstein told me. He also notes that the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Vietnam share the same geographical advantage. As the porous border of neighboring North Vietnam provided sanctuary and facilitated support to our enemy then, so Pakistan serves our enemy today. 

Most worrisome, in Goldstein’s view, is the notion that a recycling of America’s failed “clear and hold” strategy in Vietnam could work in Afghanistan. How can American forces protect the population, let alone help build a functioning nation, in a tribal narco-state consisting of some 40,000 mostly rural villages over an area larger than California and New York combined? 

Even if we routed the Taliban in another decade or two, after countless casualties and billions of dollars, how would that stop Al Qaeda from coalescing in Somalia or some other criminal host state? How would a Taliban-free Afghanistan stop a jihadist trained in Pakistan’s Qaeda camps from mounting a terrorist plot in Denver and Queens? 

Already hawks are arguing that any deviation from McChrystal’s combat-troop requests is tantamount to surrender and “immediate withdrawal.” But that all-in or all-out argument, a fixture of the Iraq debate, is just as false a choice here. Obama is not contemplating either surrender to terrorists or withdrawal from Afghanistan. One prime alternative is the counterterrorism plan championed by Biden. As The Times reported, it would scale back American forces in Afghanistan to “focus more on rooting out Al Qaeda there and in Pakistan.” 

Obama’s decision, whichever it is, will demand all the wisdom and political courage he can muster. If he adds combat troops, he’ll be extending a deteriorating eight-year-long war without a majority of his country or his own party behind him. He’ll have to explain why more American lives should be yoked to the Karzai “government.” He’ll have to be honest in estimating the cost. (The Iraq war, which the Bush administration priced at $50 to $60 billion, is at roughly $1 trillion and counting.) He will have to finally ask recession-battered Americans what his predecessor never did: How much — and what — are you willing to sacrifice in blood and treasure for the mission? 

If Obama instead decides to embrace some variation on the Biden option, he’ll have a different challenge. He’ll face even more violent attacks than he did this summer. When George Will wrote a recent column titled “Time to Get Out of Afghanistan,” he was accused of “urging retreat and accepting defeat” (by William Kristol) and of “waving the bloody shirt” (by Fred Kagan, an official adviser to McChrystal who, incredibly enough, freelances as a blogger at National Review). The editorial page at Will’s home paper, The Washington Post, declared that deviating from McChrystal’s demand for more troops “would both dishonor and endanger this country.” If a conservative columnist can provoke neocon invective this hysterical, just imagine what will be hurled at Obama.

But the author of “Lessons in Disaster” does not believe that a change in course in Afghanistan would be a disaster for Obama’s young presidency. “His greatest qualities as president,” Goldstein says, “are his quality of mind and his quality of judgment — his dispassionate ability to analyze a situation. If he was able to do that here, he might more than survive a short-term hit from the military and right-wing pundits. He would establish his credibility as a president who will override his advisers when a strategy doesn’t make sense.”

Either way, it’s up to the president to decide what he thinks is right for the country’s security, the politics be damned. That he has temporarily pressed the pause button to think it through while others, including some of his own generals, try to lock him in is not a sign of indecisiveness but of confidence and strength. It is, perhaps, Obama’s most significant down payment yet on being, in the most patriotic sense, Kennedyesque.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Sep 2009)

Article from the NY Times



> Plan to Boost Afghan Forces Splits Obama Advisers
> 
> WASHINGTON — As President Obama weighs sending more troops to Afghanistan, one of the most consequential decisions of his presidency, he has discovered that the military is not monolithic in support of the plan and that some of the civilian advisers he respects most have deep reservations.
> 
> ...



More on link

First point- Re: advisers making Obama's life difficult by offering differing advice.  That's their job.  Obama's job, the one he asked for and got, is to decide which advice to follow.

Second point - related to first - "skepticism that more troops would guarantee success".  Of course there are no guarantees of success.  Conversely quitting will guarantee failure.

Third point - Re: selection of advisers – I am reminded of Peter Gzowski’s “balanced” panel of commentators.  Three socialists (Kieran, Camp and Lewis), one each from the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP respectively.

In particular, re the last, Powell is staying true to form.  The Powell Doctrine of rapid, brief and massive intervention or no intervention at all is internalized from his Vietnam experience.  He was part of the cadre that converted the Army from a force that could have won in Vietnam if the politicians had had enough staying power, to a force that could never, ever contemplate a Vietnam type excursion again.

He and his ilk were largely responsible for stripping the Army of its Light Forces (read Infantry) and converting it into a Cavalry force capable of delivering a short, sharp, shock.  In doing so they created a force capable only of the destructive work of warfare but lacking staying powere and incapable of the constructive work of policing (without major retooling).  Thus their army excelled in destroying Saddam’s ability to wage war but was incapable of tackling the necessary task of “nation building” that ultimately was necessary to oust Saddam completely.  

That is what Rumsfeld was alluding to when he said you fight with the army you have, not the one you might wish for.

It is only with Petraeus, with the support of his Commander in Chief George Bush, that the Army was reconfigured into a more balanced posture.

None of the Advisers are fans of maintaining an Imperial Constabulary – and yet that is what the world requires.   The real question is: Whose Imperium? 


Edited Non Sequitur from Baden Guy's posting:

But the author of “Lessons in Disaster” does not believe that a change in course in Afghanistan would be a disaster for Obama’s young presidency. “His greatest qualities as president,” Goldstein says, “are his quality of mind and his quality of judgment — his dispassionate ability to analyze a situation. If he was able to do that here, he might more than survive a short-term hit from the military and right-wing pundits. He would establish his credibility as a president who will override his advisers when a strategy doesn’t make sense.”

Either way, it’s up to the president to decide what he thinks is right for the country’s security, the politics be damned.

I agree with Goldstein in the final sentence.  It is up to Obama to decide.

His previous paragraph is pandering.  To paraphrase:  "O Great Pharaoh, you believe that you have amazing powers, you will prove them to me by agreeing with me and I will continue to worship you (in public, pro tem)".


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Sep 2009)

Start of a post at _The Torch_ (with video):

Gates and the generals, and admirals 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/gates-and-generals-and-admirals.html



> Further to this post,
> 
> *Obama and the generals, and admirals*
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-and-generals-and-admirals.html
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced, *without comment*, under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is a commentary by a NDP insider, in why we should and should not fight:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/brian-topp/why-obama-should-say-no/article1304507/


> Obama should say 'No thanks, not this time'
> 
> Brian Topp
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell: Not exactly what's on the locals' mind.  From _The Torch_:

Some AfPak constraints, or, the Indian elephant in the room 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/some-afpak-constraints-or-indian.html

How nice that Woodsworth is repudiated.  Esp. with hindsight as in Sept. 1939 no-one had any realistic idea how the war would evolve.  Which might be kept in mind when thinking about the consequences of Afstan falling again to the Taliban (and remember the Soviets were forced to withdraw, well before the Taliban even existed).  More relevant:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/gates-and-generals-and-admirals.html



> "...
> GATES: ...The reality is, failure in Afghanistan would be a huge setback for the United States. Taliban and Al Qaida, as far as they're concerned, defeated one superpower. For them to be seen to defeat a second, I think, would have catastrophic consequences in terms of energizing the extremist movement, Al Qaida recruitment, operations, fundraising, and so on. I think it would be a huge setback for the United States...
> 
> GATES: ...I think if the president were to decide to approve additional combat forces, they really probably could not begin to flow until some time in January..."
> ...



One finds it hard to see al Qaeda and the Taliban worrying much over the finer points of Roman Catholic just war doctrine.  Neither, I think, should we.  Though we must indeed have some sense of proportionality.

But with, as far as I can see, the fact that some several thousand Afghans (less than 10,000 a year out of a population of 25-30 million) are dying from the war at this point would not be something about which I'd get too morally excited from any reasonable historical standard.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Sep 2009)

ER:  Very good article.  I'll use all my powers (ha!) and try to dissect the author's message.  But it will take time.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Sep 2009)

Time  has passed, and here is my reply:



> “it was as a man apart, as a prophet. Frail and aging, he poured into that single speech his whole molten hatred of war, of its utter senselessness and uselessness, of his personal determination to oppose it to the end”
> 
> It is also true that at that moment Woodsworth was utterly wrong, as his party and caucus regretfully concluded.
> 
> Social democrats in Parliament applauded him, thanked him, and then broke with him, voting correctly to join Britain's increasingly lonely fight against Nazism -- two years before the United States could bring itself to do so.



The author starts off on the wrong foot in my opinion.  He quotes Woodsworth, virtually saying that he is prophetic in his desire for peace.  The desire of peace is noble; however, it must not ever be “at all cost”.  The exact example used is the benchmark against which the futility of peace at any cost really is.  Woodsworth was utterly wrong then, and his statements are utterly wrong now, and always will be.  War may make no sense to some, but sometimes it is necessary.  The second world war ended tyranny in Europe and Africa, not to mention in eastern Asia.  In my mind, that was the sensefulness and usefulness of the war.

As an aside, on 10 September, 1939, Great Britain was not fighting “increasingly alone” against Nazism.  France, Poland and the UK were joined in the fight, soon to be joined by other nations.



> 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
> The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
> all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
> there must be serious prospects of success;
> ...



This is not what makes a just war, this is what makes going to war just (Jus ad Bellum).  The conduct of war (Jus in Bello) is a separate, though closely linked matter.




> All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective
> 
> But the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was a national government.
> 
> ...



The author talks of the fight against Al Qaeda.  I will not comment on that, as this article is primarily about the war in Afghanistan.  It this part, the author is partially correct; however, he fails to note that the line between “conventional” and “non-conventional” war is rather blurry, and often useless.  I do agree that the war, as such be focused and limited, and that the war should be ended as soon as practicable.  


> There must be serious prospects of success
> 
> Here we get to the nub of the matter as it stands today.
> 
> ...


Here the author loses me totally.  Destroying the government, the national infrastructure, and then leaving Afghanistan to its own means would have produced a much worse state of affairs than was the case on 10 September 2001.  Such a state of affairs is exactly what allowed Al Qaeda to set up shop in Afghanistan.  The example of “lack of schooling and health care” in Canada and other nations is a specious argument that makes no sense in the level of comparison.  All Canadians and Americans can get “some” level of healthcare and schooling if they so desire.  In Afghanistan, this simply is not the case, and certainly would not have been the case had the west left on 11 September 2002.  China Shop rules are in effect: if you break it, you bought it.  
The author must note that once we finished destroying the society known as Germany in 1945, we stayed and ensured that they built back up again; however, it was on our terms, more or less.  That is the exact model to be employed in any war: build the nation back up.



> The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated
> 
> Forces in Afghanistan who oppose the use of that country as a base for terrorist attacks in other countries should be plentifully and indefinitely supplied and supported.
> 
> And the United States and its allies should make clear -- and mean it (i.e. through new agreements and an appropriate permanent base structure) -- that a future Afghan government that provides sanctuary to al-Qaeda will again be destroyed.



Is the author suggesting that we keep going back, playing “whack-a-mole” with nations?  In order to ensure that we no produce evils and disorders, it is necessary for us to rebuild that nation, and destroy those who would hamper such redevelopment.  This key tenet of the catechism states exactly why we should remain in Afghanistan using the model that is currently employed in Kandahar, and has been for some time.  Our Provincial Reconstruction Team, a blend of military and civilians, is our main effort, or at least it should be.  We have destroyed the Taliban government though the use of arms.  Now is, and has been, the time to build that nation back up.  



> 2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. ...
> 
> In other words, war criminals must be brought to justice.


No argument here.  I’m not sure of its relevance, however.

In conclusion, the author unwittingly outlines exactly why we should stay in Afghanistan.  Though disgusting and full of evils, war is sometimes a necessity.  And one thing worse than war is waging a war, and then leaving in place the exact reason why the war was necessary in the first place.  In the case of Afghanistan, the reasons include poverty and illiteracy.  We are making steps in the right direction, and there are those who oppose such progress, because it undermines their own power.  And because there are those who oppose progress for all, they must be destroyed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2009)

At the risk of getting into a philosophical debate with Midnight Rambler, which I am bound to lose, in my view there is a problem with _rationalizing_ strategic decisions like going to or ending a war. The “just war” theories (_just cause_ for going to war, _just conduct_ in war, and _just conduct_ after war) are just that: _rationalization_ of *realist conduct* that is, almost always, at odds with the _popular_ belief system.

Augustine lived in a particularly difficult era: _civilization_, as it was known, was contracting, being driven into the cities as powerful, _innovative_ ”barbarians” advanced (migrated) from the North and East. The people Augustine served, the _Western Romans_, were being overrun by a variety of peoples (whose names still resonate in our language: Vandals, Goths and Huns, for example) and the necessities of military and political survival were very much different from the doctrine of the fast growing, increasingly powerful Christian religion. It rather reminds me of an old staff college joke which goes:  _“That’s great in practice; but can you make it work in theory?”_ Augustine _squared the circle_ for his masters; he reconciled the _heavenly hopes_ of the believing Christians with the hellish realities of 5th century Europe.

--------------------​
War is failure.

All wars represent a failure to accomplish one’s ends by less difficult and expensive and destructive means.

Osama bin laden and _al Qaeda_ *failed*, over and over again, throughout the ‘90s to persuade the West to withdraw from Arabia and to stop supporting Israel and, and, and, _ad infinitum_. So he/they went to war. He/they attacked America, in particular, at every weak point they could find – in Arabia, in the Africa, in the Middle East and in America. His attacks produced precisely the wrong responses: the Americans did not give in to his demands; they counter attacked; he lost his base in Afghanistan (and must now rebuild in Somalia); he lost his _popular_ support amongst the knee-jerk anti-Americans in East and West; he frightened China and India; and on and on goes the list. He failed because he could not find a useful, sensible, successful way to accomplish his _crusade_.

Hitler *failed* in 1939. He actually had the West on the run; he *might* have parlayed Western fear of another destructive war and Western anti-communism to a “free hand” to get his _lebensraum_ and accomplish his dastardly political goals. But he went to war instead and the results were not what he wished.

-------------------​
With specific regard to Woodsworth: we can, even should admire him for the strength of his beliefs and, even more, for the _grace_ and dignity with which he advanced them. But, in 1939, his _pacifism_ was morally unacceptable. A Western, *civilized* response to the attack by Hitler’s *barbarians* was not only justified, it was mandatory. We, the _civilized_ West, *knew*, before 1939, that the Germans had gone off the moral rails and were hell bent on a morally unacceptable course of conquest and destruction. We know this because, in 2000, the _Globe and Mail_ published a year long series of historic front pages. In November 2000 they published a front page from a November 1938edition of the _Toronto Globe and Mail_, as it was then. There, “above the fold,” with a large photo, was a boldly headlined “lead” story on _Kristallnacht_ that, clearly, told us where the Germans were headed. Yes, the full depth and breadth of German _barbarism_ wasn’t evident to the whole world until 1945 but the “broad strokes” were on the canvas long before September 1939. Woodsworth’s plea for peace was moving but wrong.

Finally, comparing  McNamara’s ( and Kennedy’s) series of failures in/about Vietnam with Obama/Gates/McChrystal is asinine. The Americans are in a morally legitimate responsive mode – *this war* is just because it is a _strategically_ defensive “response” to an unjustified attack. It may not be being prosecuted correctly, we may not “win” it in any conventional sense, but political lessons from the ‘60s do not apply.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ web site, is a report on another call for a revised “plan” for Afghanistan:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2044587


> NATO chief calls for new Afghan strategy
> *New Afghanistan strategy needed, says Rasmussen*
> 
> Viola Gienger, Bloomberg
> ...




Does anyone in NATO/ISAF capitals or HQs really want to carry on doing _"exactly what we're doing now"_? If not then why are we still doing "it," whatever "it" is?


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Sep 2009)

I am no expert in this area of counter insurgency, I fully admit that.
However, while the brunt of the casualties seem to be US, Brit and Canadian, including my son, I'd like to tell our NATO "allies" that maybe if they got on the wagon with us, maybe the ride would be more successful.

Or am I preaching to the choir?


----------



## Infanteer (29 Sep 2009)

To be honest, I'm getting a little sick of the "we need to change our strategy or risk losing the war" broken record that has been going on for a year or two now....


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Sep 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> To be honest, I'm getting a little sick of the "we need to change our strategy or risk losing the war" broken record that has been going on for a year or two now....


AMEN!!!!!!!  (to keep the theme of Augustine and the Papists going!) ;D


For any strategy to work, it must be given time.  I just wonder if the Secretary General really knows what "we" are doing "over there"?

For any future officers out there, THIS is exactly why we do estimates.  We problem solve, which in many cases involves finding out exactly what the problem is.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> At the risk of getting into a philosophical debate with Midnight Rambler, which I am bound to lose, in my view there is a problem with _rationalizing_ strategic decisions like going to or ending a war. The “just war” theories (_just cause_ for going to war, _just conduct_ in war, and _just conduct_ after war) are just that: _rationalization_ of *realist conduct* that is, almost always, at odds with the _popular_ belief system.


No argument here, and if nothing else, I believe that part of the problem with Woodsworth is that in theory, he may have been correct; however, what he said had no application in the real world.  So, perhaps I agree with the author that parliamentarians should read his September 1939 speech, as an example of what can happen when you fail to consider the real world when attempting to practice philosophy.

As for Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello, I see those more as legal concepts vice philosophical.  And you raise very VERY interesting points that I had never before considered: OBL and AH both _failed_, and therefore had to resort to war to get their ends desired.


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Sep 2009)

Two excellent posts by BruceR at _Flit_ (first has great graphics, note "security sponges" in second):

Afghanistats, 2009 version
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_09_29.html#006545

Associated strategery musings
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_09_29.html#006546

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Sep 2009)

This from CBC.ca (highlights mine):


> The government .... is considering many options for continuing to help the Afghan population — including security, which would undoubtedly involve an unspecified number of soldiers, said Defence Minister Peter MacKay.
> 
> *"It involves securing, but working to develop the countryside, working to invest in infrastructure," *said MacKay.
> 
> ...



Question for anyone who knows the organization better than I do:  could Canada keep the PRT going without any Canadian troops?  I ask because if the March 2008 motion of the House is to be followed, there should be no Canadian troops left in Kandahar by the end of 2011.

Also, this from Jack Granatstien, via the _Globe & Mail_, about considering another Manley-esque commission to consider Canada's future in AFG:


> .... Now the clock is ticking toward the inevitable Canadian withdrawal. Can we not replicate the Manley commission to help us prepare the plan for the post-2011 years? This could not happen if the country had been plunged into a general election this fall, but, with some luck, we may avoid this until after the Vancouver Olympics.
> 
> A commission set up now could hear witnesses, including Canadian diplomats and aid officials, senior officers from the Canadian Forces, academics, representatives of non-governmental organizations and others. It could talk to foreign diplomats and politicians and visit Afghanistan and Pakistan ....



_- edited to add Granatstein idea -_


----------



## a_majoor (30 Sep 2009)

All our efforts may end up being for nothing if the Obama administration walks away from Afghanistan, and there are indications here they intend to do exactly that. Not surprising really, when they tossed their European allies to the Russians without a second thought:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/obama-afghanistan-copenhagen.html



> *What Obama won't say about the Afghan war today, at least publicly*
> September 30, 2009 |  2:04 am
> 
> This is a messy time for the nation's politics. And this seemingly serene autumn day is quietly crucial.
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Sep 2009)

Terry Glavin
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/

gives a crucial Afghan viewpoint in the _National Post_:

What we must promise Afghanistan
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=2048394



> It is heartening to see that the consensus of silence that has united Canada's political leaders on the Afghanistan question is at long last receiving some public notice. The sound of crickets is pretty well all we've been hearing ever since the January 2008 release of John Manley's sobering, no-nonsense report about Canada's purposes in that faraway country.
> 
> The report should have provided the basis for a proper public debate about what Canada's role might be at the 2011 end-date of the 52-nation Afghanistan Compact. Instead, the Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats have used the opportunity as an excuse to keep schtum about the whole thing...
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> All our efforts may end up being for nothing if the Obama administration walks away from Afghanistan, and there are indications here they intend to do exactly that. Not surprising really, when they tossed their European allies to the Russians without a second thought:
> 
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/obama-afghanistan-copenhagen.html




American political "great" Tip O'Neil said (or, rather, his father said), "all politics is local."






Oil on canvas, Robert Vickery, 1986, Collection of U.S. House of Representatives


The "local" politics in the USA is health care and the economy. These _pocket book issues_ will always take precedence over far away _strategic_ matters.

And make no mistake: _strategy_ and politics are inextricably linked and have been for, at least, 2,500 years, according to Thucydides' _History of the Peloponnesian War_. Pericles had to fight simultaneous (domestic) political and military battles.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Sep 2009)

Interesting Michael Yon interview on the situation in Afghanistan and his view that the coalition is on the verge of collapse.I think that he overstates the condition of ISAF but I have to say its the most ineffective wartime coalition that I can remember. Every member of the coalition should have the same ROE and be at the complete direction of the theater commander.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2254637


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Sep 2009)

Further to milnews.ca's comment,
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-879250.html#msg879250

here's one constraint on our government's being very clear about the future of Canada's military mission:

Afstan mission planning--"Gotcha!"? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/afstan-mission-planning-gotcha.html

And, of course, if President Obama effectively downgrades the American commitment it will, to my mind, be politically impossible for *any* Canadian military mission to continue after 2011.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Sep 2009)

Start of a Torch post, note the end:

ANSF realities 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/ansf-realities.html



> Two more from BruceR at _Flit_; the first should be a must-read for those concerned about the issue...
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Military+investigation+abuse+doesn+ring+true/2013285/story.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2009)

.... from the House of Commons (Hansard, QP, 30 Sept 09) - highlights mine:


> Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs about Afghanistan.  The motion that we passed in the House was very unambiguous and very clear with respect to Canadian troops being redeployed out of Kandahar by December 2011. Certain comments have been made by other ministers and by other candidates for the Conservative Party with respect to the intentions of the Conservative Party post-2011.
> 
> My question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs is about Canada's presence in Afghanistan. Is he sticking to the motion that was passed by the House in March 2008?
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Oct 2009)

Further to milnews.ca's comment, conclusion of a _Torch_ post:

Afstan: What the Commons' resolution says and what the government says 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/afstan-what-commons-resolutions-says.html



> ...
> It's simple. "Combat" or not, and what constitutes combat, are irrelevant at this point. The resolution is clear. The CF will be out of Kandahar by the end of 2011. If there is to be some continuing military mission in Afstan it will have to be somewhere else. Which, to my mind, is practically impossible for a mission of any size, especially one involving the PRT or trainers in the field with the ANSF (it would be madness to move given the local expertise and experience we have), or the Air Force (too much invested at KAF to make a move sensible in any way).
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/keep-that-air-wing-at-kandahar-plus.html
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Oct 2009)

....from Hansard (1 Oct 09):


> Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons voted last year to have all troops out of Kandahar by 2011, but now we hear hints from the Minister of National Defence that the troops may stay in Afghanistan longer.  It is now the established practice in the House that there be a vote in the House of Commons on the deployment of Canadian troops. Does the Prime Minister believe that he can keep troops in Afghanistan beyond 2011 without a vote in the House authorizing such a deployment?
> 
> Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, let us be clear that it was this government that brought in the practice that military deployments have to be approved by the House of Commons.  The position of the government is clear. *The military mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011.* I have said it here and I have said it across the country. In fact, I think I said it recently in the White House.


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Oct 2009)

Two at _The Torch_:

Afstan: Dutch really seem like going in 2010/Effect on our government//Brit *Update* 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/afstan-dutch-really-seem-like-going-in.html

Afstan: The McChrystal watch (video at 2)) and the president/*Update*: "War, D.C.-style" 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/afstan-mcchrystal-watch-video-at-2-and.html

And from Terry Glavin:

The Taliban doesn't want to talk to you, it wants to kill you
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/01/terry-glavin-the-taliban-doesn-t-wants-talks-it-wants-death.aspx 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Oct 2009)

And more good thinking from BruceR at _Flit_:

Deciding or dithering
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_10_02.html#006551

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Oct 2009)

Paper on force requirements by Frederick Kagan.

http://www.irantracker.org/sites/irantracker.org/files/pdf_upload/analysis/TTT_Afghanistan_-_Kagan.pdf


----------



## Infanteer (3 Oct 2009)

Nice breakdown but considering Kagan's presentation is dated for September, his breakdown of forces and conclusions in Kandahar is off the mark with the arrival of Forces there over 2009.

As well, he bases his numbers off of the magic 1:50 ratio, which has no real value.  John J McGrath challenges that number here:

 http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/mcgrath_boots.pdf


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Oct 2009)

Two reports:

Report Cites Firefight as Lesson on Afghan War 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/world/asia/03battle.html?_r=1&th&emc=th



> ...
> 
> That firefight, a debacle that cost nine American lives in July 2008, has become the new template for how not to win in Afghanistan. The calamity and its roots have been described in bitter, painstaking detail in an unreleased Army history, a devastating narrative that has begun to circulate in an initial form even as the military opened a formal review this week of decisions made up and down the chain of command.
> 
> ...



Corruption, Shortage of Mentors Hinder Afghan Forces, U.S. Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/02/AR2009100205303.html?hpid=topnews



> As the White House weighs a request from the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan for additional troops for combat and training there, a new report from the Defense Department's inspector general attributes shortcomings in the Afghan army and police force to a shortage of U.S. mentors and trainers, corruption and illiteracy among Afghan soldiers and a lack of strategic planning.
> 
> "Expansion of the ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] beyond currently approved levels will face major challenges," the 224-page report concludes, listing a major one as "time necessary to develop ethical, competent leaders."
> 
> ...



More on police:

The US Army Military Police unit for Kandahar
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/us-army-military-police-unit-for.html

And on brass hats vs. frock coats:

A General's Public Pressure
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/02/AR2009100203939.html



> The president, the Constitution tells us, is the commander in chief. But is it true?
> 
> In a speech in London on Thursday, Gen. Stanley McChrystal publicly intervened in the debate over Afghanistan. Vice President Biden has suggested that we focus on fighting al-Qaeda and refrain from using our troops to prop up the government of President Hamid Karzai. But when this strategic option was raised at his presentation, McChrystal said it was a formula for "Chaos-istan." When asked whether he would support it, he said, "The short answer is: No."
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Oct 2009)

At _The Torch_:

Islamist bad guys and Afstan/British brass hats and frock coats 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/islamist-bad-guys-and-afstanuk-brass.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## leroi (5 Oct 2009)

A sign of a job well done: seven million children in Afghanistan are now going to school!! Bravo Zulu!!!

Afghan General Pegs 2013 as Date Country's Army Can Take Over 
Globe and Mail, October 5, 2009
www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/afghan-general-pegs-2013-as-date-countrys-army-can-take-over/article1311667/

Sounds to me like Canada's decision to end the combat mission is firmly set:


> “You could make the case” that Canada is ending its combat role in Afghanistan two years too early, said Gen. Tremblay. “It's really up to Canada to decide it. And so far we're out of here.”



Some positive words:


> If the people of Afghanistan trust the ANA, it is because Canadian and other international troops helped the army learn how to do its job, Gen. Azimi told The Globe.
> 
> “As I speak with you, seven million boys and girls are going to school. When women's rights were violated, you can see that the media immediately broadcast that,” he said.


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Oct 2009)

End of a _Torch_ post (with video of National Security Adviser Jones):

More US troops for Afstan? Retired general rebukes serving one/Canadian general speaks 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/more-us-troops-for-afstan-retired.html



> ...
> Meanwhile, in the _Globe and Mail_,
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/Somnia/article1311667/
> a Canadian general in Kabul speaks some truth, hope it's not career-challenging:
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Oct 2009)

More on US thinking/planning:

Surgical Strikes Shape Afghanistan Debate
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/world/asia/06prexy.html?_r=1&th&emc=th



> A string of successful operations recently killing or capturing high-level figures from Al Qaeda, particularly in the tribal areas of Pakistan, has fueled the argument inside the Obama administration about the necessity of a substantial troop buildup in Afghanistan, officials said.
> 
> Administration officials said the United States had eliminated more than half of its top targets over the last year, severely constricted Al Qaeda’s capacity to operate and choked off a lot of its financing. The sense of progress against Al Qaeda and its allies has helped shape the internal debate over the best way to fight in Afghanistan as President Obama explores alternatives to a large escalation.
> 
> ...



Afghan War Units Begin Two New Efforts 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125479517717366539.html



> The Pentagon is establishing two new units devoted to the Afghan war, highlighting the military's focus on the conflict even as the White House considers scaling back the overall U.S. mission there.
> 
> The units -- a so-called Afghan Hands program run out of the Pentagon and a new intelligence center within Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- are designed to help troops deepen their intelligence about the country's complex political and tribal dynamics.
> 
> ...



Afghanistan and Leadership
Gen. McChrystal needs more troops now precisely so Afghans can take over the war effort later.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574454810540018326.html



> 'We're at a point in Afghanistan right now in our overall campaign," the U.S. general says, "where increasingly security can best be delivered by the extension of good governance, justice, economic reconstruction." Afghan security forces "fight side by side with us" more and more frequently, he adds, and American troops are working hard to develop the Afghan security forces. Coalition forces are focusing on securing the population, because "the key terrain is the human terrain."
> 
> This all sounds like Gen. Stanley McChrystal's proposed strategy for victory. But those words were spoken in May 2006 by Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, then the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



Conclusion of _Washington Post_ editorial:

If We Lose Afghanistan
Yes, al-Qaeda would return. But that's just the beginning.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100503184.html



> ...
> Defeating the Taliban and fostering an Afghan government and army that can stabilize the country are daunting tasks that will require years of patience. It could be that even a concerted effort, along the lines proposed by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, would fail. There should be no mistaking, however, what the stakes of this conflict are. Whether or not al-Qaeda regains its pre-9/11 haven, a Taliban victory would be a catastrophe for the United States and its allies.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Oct 2009)

Start of a _Torch_ post:

Brit Afstan round-up
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/brit-afstan-round-up.html



> New troops, more troops (?), and more controversty between a brass hat (retired) and frock coats...
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/islamist-bad-guys-and-afstanuk-brass.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2009)

....this group of MPs got to talking last week, and decided the following (highlights mine):


> 1. That meetings of the Special Committee on Canada's mission to Afghanistan now take place on Wednesday afternoons from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m., in order to accommodate the changes made to the rotational committee schedule covering the period from September 2009 to December 2009.
> 
> 2. That *the Special Committee review Canada's development effort in Afghanistan with a focus on the six priorities, political reconciliation and the status of women*; and that members of the Committee submit to the Clerk, as soon as possible, their lists of suggested witnesses for the study.
> 
> ...



And here's who sits on the Special Committee:

Chair
Rick Casson

Vice-Chair
Bryon Wilfert

Members
Jim Abbott
Claude Bachand
Paul Dewar
Ujjal Dosanjh
Laurie Daniel Hawn
Greg Kerr
Francine Lalonde
Dave MacKenzie
Deepak Obhrai
Bob Rae

A bit more here.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2009)

Jeffrey Simpson, the _Globe and Mail_’s national (Canadian) political guru is not a stupid man, but he persists in grossly misunderstanding and misrepresenting what Canada is doing and trying to do in Afghanistan. He continues to display his abysmal ignorance in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/despite-our-setbacks-all-quiet-on-the-afghan-front/article1314266/


> Despite our setbacks, all quiet on the Afghan front
> *More of the same is a losing strategy. So where's the debate over Canada's next move?*
> 
> Jeffrey Simpson
> ...




First, Simpson is right, albeit a master of the obvious, in saying that:

•	Afghanistan was violent and corrupt for a long, long time before we arrived; and

•	Combatting the poppy trade has been largely a failure;

•	The recent election that apparently kept President Hamid Karzai in office was marked by fraud; and

•	Since one of the first rules of a counterinsurgency war is to have a local government the people trust and prefer to the insurgents, the election was a serious setback, both in terms of how it was conducted and who won.

But:

1. Afghanistan is not, by any stretch of the imagination _“Canada's biggest military commitment since the Second World War”_. We have made a major *national* commitment to help this poor, war torn and yes corrupt and violent country; but some people want us to “cut and run” just because it is tougher than a few effete Torontonians imagined;and

2. While _”the U.S. administration is clearly wrestling with Afghan options”_ but they are not all bad – some, those offered by Gen McChrystal, for example, are damned good, unless one is a strategically ignorant effete Torontonian who is _waaaay_ out of his lanes.


Simpson is right again in saying: _” There is a better-than-even-money chance that the Taliban would return to power, aided by their allies in Pakistan ... _[and a]_ Taliban return would be the best tool imaginable for worldwide jihadist recruiting. It would certainly produce recruits for nearby countries in Central Asia and in Pakistan,”_ but Simpson’s suggestion _”reducing troops, but refocusing attention on killing al-Qaeda leaders, especially through unmanned drone attacks against targets in Pakistan”_ is just plain *stupid*. It is akin, as someone told me recently, to try to destroy a wasps’ nest by killing one wasp at a time.

Canadian politicians have, I have heard, on the rumour net, decided to avoid any and all discussions of Afghanistan. The agreed resolution says that we *depart Kandahar*, not Afghanistan, by end 2011.

Because the enemy is aware of the fact that NATO/ISAF is concentrating its efforts in the South, new attacks have begun in the North, where the _Euro_ military tourists hide behind their wire and caveats. How about moving the Canadians, battle group, PRT, _Tim Hortons_ and all, up to _Konduz_ where the Germans have, recently, been attacked? We, being allowed to go out and fight, could clean up the area pretty damned quickly.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Oct 2009)

One thing which never seems to get the attention that it deserves is the large numbers of children attending school. If we hang in there until 2015, then 10 years will have passed since the initial 5 million or so Afghan children started going to school, and a large cadre of educated people will enter Afghan society.

They, far more than any number of ISAF, Canadian or ANA troops will be the real drivers of change. 

The sterling work of the KPRT, especially in economic development (micro-loans etc.) is another leg of the mission which never seems to be discussed either...


----------



## GAP (7 Oct 2009)

It would seem that most reporters that go there, go with the "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality....and they can't seem to get past that. I see it in the US reporting also.


----------



## Dan Bobbitt (8 Oct 2009)

Here's an interesting and well thought out article with some suggestions for an international strategy in Afghanistan written by a Pakistani Infantry Officer currently attending the Command and General Staff College here in the United States.  

His argument is a variation on the ink-spot method with a decidedly Pashtun flavour - perhaps in recognition of the demographic and historical realities of Afghanistan, perhaps for more subtle reasons given the Pakistani-Pashtun connection. He implies that we need to reexamine our efforts at establishing a strong central government in Afghanistan.  I found it very worthwhile as an assessment of what we probably cannot achieve in Afghanistan, at least with our current and likely levels of popular and political support. Timely given the current US national debate on Afghanistan strategy.

Don't Try to Arrest the Sea: An Alternative Approach for Afghanistan by Major Mehar Omar Khan
[Title] by [Author(s)] is reprinted from Small Wars Journal per the Creative Commons license granted upon its http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/10/an-alternative-approach-for-af/

I do find Simpson's point that while a major and very public debate is ongoing here in the United State's over future Afghanistan strategy, the same debate does not appear to be happening in Canada.  Even if we do pull out in 2011 that's still 18 months away.

Dan


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Oct 2009)

Conclusion of a _Torch_ post:

Obama's got McChrystal's Afghan numbers/Update: McChrystal plan the right way to go? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/obamas-got-mccrystals-afghan-numbers.html



> ...
> *Update*: Is the McChrystal plan the right way to go? I've heard from someone with very good insight into the situation that it most certainly is. But will it be properly implemented--troop increases completely aside--by NATO ISAF and, indeed, the US? In particular:
> 
> -ISAF must get away from focusing on force protection, risk aversion, and an over-emphasis on operational security;
> ...



And from Paul at _Celestial Junk_:

The First Signs of Vietnamistan
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2009/10/first-signs-of-vietnamistan.html



> The first signs of a failed strategy by a modern army from a liberal democratic state is that the troops begin to lose hope ... now that the first small signs are manifesting themselves in Afghanistan, it is indeed time for Obama to become a winner, to go in big as McChrystal calls for, or go home:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6865359.ece#
> 
> “The many soldiers who come to see us have a sense of futility and anger about being here. They are really in a state of depression and despair and just want to get back to their families,” said Captain Jeff Masengale, of the 10th Mountain Division’s 2-87 Infantry Battalion..."
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2009)

Now this, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC News web site, is *news*:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/08/mackay-troops-afghanistan008.html


> Troops to stay in Afghanistan after 2011: MacKay
> 
> Thursday, October 8, 2009
> 
> ...




I do not believe that a new parliamentary resolution is, strictly, required, unless the Government of Canada wants to stay in *Kandahar*. The existing parliamentary "opinion" says, _”that Canada should continue a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to July 2011 ..._ [and]_ 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.”_

Canada can, therefore, remain in Afghanistan, anywhere except Kandahar, after 2011. Maybe up North in _Konduz_ to do a bit of fighting – which the German’s whose province _Konduz_ is, are not allowed to do?


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2009)

To me, this bit


> The Conservative government will respect a motion passed in March 2008 to withdraw troops until a new motion is tabled in the Commons


suggests some level of desire to perhaps stay in K'Har (as you say E.R., if they're contemplating going someplace else in AFG, the motion can stay as is), if nothing else, because it might be easier than pulling pole and moving someplace else.

It'll be interesting to see how this bit:


> The role of the troops will change from fighting a war to development and *training*


will be meshed with previous statements & messaging (including some made in the House of Commons) to the effect that the *combat* mission will end - unless they plan to run some kind of recruit-depot-esque facility to groom troops before they get sent to OMLT teams from other countries.

Only just started digging through Hansard for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Foreign Affairs Mininster's material on Parliament's role in the determining the future mission, but I spotted Mr. O saying this to an NDP colleague about the situation in AFG:


> Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC) .... This is not a war. We are providing a secure environment in a country in which there was a complete loss of security. Let us get it very clear so the NDP can understand what a secure environment is and what a war is.
> 
> A war is between two nations; a war is between two parties. There are not two parties there. This is a different kind of war. We are facing a terrorist organization that does not respect any rules of engagement. As a matter of fact, it has the most hideous way of running a government on record. It will provide no rights to its own citizens. That is why the citizens of Afghanistan want us to bring peace and security. Peace and security can only be provided by NATO forces.



_- edited to add initial 5 Oct 09 Hansard material -_


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2009)

...during the "impromptu debate" on Afghanistan by Deepak Obhrai, the parliamentary secretary to the foreign affairs minister, from Hansard:


> Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that when the mission is debated after 2011 by Parliament, he …. will have an opportunity to fully participate in that debate. The (Special) committee (on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan) will participate. Canadians will participate to indicate how the mission after 2011 should go, while taking into account the strong values and past contributions.  I can tell the hon. member that we are looking forward to that debate.



The full back-and-forth on Afghanistan (32 pages) is also available in PDF here - worth at least skimming through to get a feel for how different parties see the issue (I was impressed with Bob Rae's comments, lack of Liberal Party solid policy notwithstanding), including the declaration that this isn't a war, it's "providing a secure environment in a country in which there was a complete loss of security".


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is another, longer report:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/parliament-to-debate-post-2011-role-in-afghanistan/article1317151/


> Parliament to debate post-2011 role in Afghanistan
> *Mission will change but Canada will not be leaving, Defence Minister says as top soldier hosts Afghan counterpart*
> 
> Murray Brewster
> ...




_Most_ Canadians will not be happy if we stay in Kandahar. Many, probably, most Canadians are persuaded - partially by our own propaganda - that "we" have _done enough_ and others have done too little.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Most_ Canadians will not be happy if we stay in Kandahar. Many, probably, most Canadians are persuaded - partially by our own propaganda - that "we" have _done enough_ and others have done too little.


And they won't get any happier when the fallen in the allegedly non-combat mission of training come home, no matter what province it happened in - I look forward to far more explaining of what happens next.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Oct 2009)

This from Hansard for Question Period on 8 Oct 09 (highlights mine):


> _Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.)_:  Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.  There is some confusion on the government's position with respect to the military mission in Afghanistan post-2011. For the second time in as many weeks the Minister of National Defence has talked about this. I would like to get the minister again on record. I tried to get him last week on this question.  Could the minister confirm that the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan will be over in 2011, yes or no?
> 
> _Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC)_:  Mr. Speaker, it seems the only person who is confused is the hon. member on the other side of the House.  Let me be perfectly clear. *Canada will end its military mission in 2011.* Do I have to repeat it to him in French?
> 
> ...



What a difference one word ("combat") makes....


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Oct 2009)

This, from Agence France-Presse:


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper reaffirmed Friday that Canadian combat troops would leave Afghanistan in 2011, but vowed his country would then focus on boosting development and humanitarian efforts.
> 
> *"Canada's military mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011," Harper told reporters. "And we will not be extending the military mission, period."*
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Oct 2009)

_Torch_ post:

McChrystal's Afstan options and Obama's al Qaeda option/Choppers 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/mcchrstals-afstan-options-and-obamas-al.html 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Oct 2009)

Deconstructing Obamastan policy with a Krauthammer (usual copyright disclaimer):

Young Hamlet's Agony
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/08/AR2009100803132.html?sid=ST2009100803350



> When the Iraq war (which a majority of Senate Democrats voted for) ran into trouble and casualties began to mount, Democrats followed the shifting winds of public opinion and turned decidedly antiwar. But needing political cover because of their post-Vietnam reputation for weakness on national defense, they adopted Afghanistan as their pet war.
> 
> "I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign, which elevated the idea of Afghanistan as 'the right war' to conventional Democratic wisdom," wrote Democratic consultant Bob Shrum shortly after President Obama was elected. "This was accurate as criticism of the Bush administration, but it was also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy."
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Oct 2009)

This, via CBC.ca, from Prime Minister's Office spokesperson Dimitri Soudas (highlights mine):


> The Conservative government intends to keep some Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan beyond Parliament's 2011 end-date for the mission, CBC News has learned .... *Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office, told CBC News there will be Canadian troops in Afghanistan after parliament's mandate expires, though "exponentially fewer."
> 
> "I would caution you against saying dozens or hundreds or a thousand, there will be exponentially fewer," Soudas said.
> 
> ...



As suggested/guessed in a previous post:


> .... unless they plan to run some kind of recruit-depot-esque facility to groom troops before they get sent to OMLT teams from other countries.



When I read the spokesperson's quote, it brings to mind this line from a US Army/Marines COIN Centre Blog entry:


> -Afghans trust and value those whose caveats permits them to go into combat with them


I'd love to hear from those who've mentored about this...


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Oct 2009)

More at _Dust my Broom_:

I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "military" is 
http://dustmybroom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12581:i-guess-it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-qmilitaryq-is&catid=54:gun-stuff



> Or something.  The goverment's disingenuous and dizzying tergiversations over what the Canadian Forces may or may not do in Afstan post-2011 are becoming ridiculous and embarrassing; what must our allies think?  In chronological order, from Oct. 8 to Oct. 10:
> 
> "*Post-2011 Mission Heading Back to the House of Commons....
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/post-2011-mission-heading-back-to-house.html
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2009)

I’m guessing we are watching, in all these contradictory statements from _official_ Ottawa, a few of the symptoms of a very intense *battle* for the foreign policy _soul_ of the Conservative Party of Canada.

On one side, on what I will call the _activist_/_internationalist_ (or, maybe, the _Liberal_ _St Laurent/Martin_) side are, I think, Peter MacKay and a few Alberta and Ontario MPs including e.g. Jim Prentice, Jim Flaherty and Peter Kent. On the other side, on what I will call the _domestic_/_isolationist_ side are Stephen Harper and his closest political advisors.

The _activist_/_internationalist_ position is fairly easy to describe, and Paul Martin did so, quite well, in the link above.

The _domestic_/_isolationist_ view is a bit more complex: at its roots it says, “Trudeau was on the right track; we have too many problems of our own; we cannot afford to go _swaning about_, all over the world, helping or fighting all and sundry. We are not going to back away, completely, but we are going to focus on our own backyard, basically the Caribbean. And we will be joining with the Americans, in military mission, now and again, when helping *them* advances _*our* national interests_. Our strengths are economic and we must play to that strength by leading in e.g. the G-20. We are not a significant military power and Canadians do not want to be a military power. We recognize the need for small, but very flexible and effective armed forces and we will spend what is necessary to have them. We will, occasionally, use our military ‘tools,’ but only when other means of advancing our national interests fail.”

It is not clear to me that either side has the political capital to win its position. This war, which has, from day one, been seen as an *American war*, into which we were dragged – how soon we forget the national mood in the late summer of 2001 – has damaged the _activist_/_internationalist_ side, but it has done so without strengthening Harper’s position. Canadians remain, very broadly but not too deeply, wedded to a variant of the St Laurent/Martin, _Liberal_ position, but they want to be _Pearsonian_ “helpful fixers” without paying the price in lives or treasure that Mike Pearson so clearly foresaw.


----------



## MikeL (10 Oct 2009)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/09/afghanistan-soldiers-canadian.html



> Troops get non-combat role in Afghanistan after 2011
> The Conservative government intends to keep some Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan in a non-combat role beyond Parliament's 2011 end-date for the military mission, CBC News has learned.
> 
> Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office, told CBC News there will be Canadian troops in Afghanistan after 2011, though "exponentially fewer."
> ...


----------



## Nauticus (10 Oct 2009)

On the bright side, we aren't leaving our allies high and dry.

Not a bad move by the government, not that anybody really thought we'd be _completely_ out in 2011 anyway.


----------



## MikeL (10 Oct 2009)

I'm really hoping that after some time we will go back to atleast having an OMLT/POMLT aswell as JDCC, CIMIC, etc


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Oct 2009)

Smoke and mirrors, ladies and gentlemen.  Smoke and mirrors.  Anyone who thinks that OMLT and PRT do not conduct "combat" are kidding themselves.  Let us not forget that the raison d'etre of the Battle Group is to provide security for the OMLT and PRT.  

The government has decided to leave *Kandahar * by end 2011.  Helmand, here we come?  :


----------



## Nauticus (10 Oct 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> Smoke and mirrors, ladies and gentlemen.  Smoke and mirrors.  Anyone who thinks that OMLT and PRT do not conduct "combat" are kidding themselves.  Let us not forget that the raison d'etre of the Battle Group is to provide security for the OMLT and PRT.
> 
> The government has decided to leave *Kandahar * by end 2011.  Helmand, here we come?  :


Which is fine, as long as the general population doesn't know that, and they don't raise a fuss.


----------



## MikeL (10 Oct 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> Helmand, here we come?  :



Well I've already seen Zhari/Panjwai an Pashmul I'm up for a change an seeing Now Zad, Lashkar Gah, Sangin, etc


----------



## X-mo-1979 (11 Oct 2009)

I wouldnt doubt the government doesnt even know what the OMLT POMLT does.They are training...sound safe....right?

I'm all for a AOR change.I always wanted to go live in Dand for 8 months.I got tired of the precipitation down there.Sorta like Newfoundland,always something falling out of the sky.


----------



## medaid (11 Oct 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> always something falling out of the sky.



Bullets?!  >


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Oct 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> Smoke and mirrors, ladies and gentlemen.  Smoke and mirrors.  Anyone who thinks that OMLT and PRT do not conduct "combat" are kidding themselves.  Let us not forget that the raison d'etre of the Battle Group is to provide security for the OMLT and PRT.
> 
> The government has decided to leave *Kandahar * by end 2011.  Helmand, here we come?  :



Not impossible, but if you believe the PM's spokesperson (and if CBC.ca quoted him correctly), it'll be to train Afghan troops AWAY from the pointiest end.

If you believe the PM (and if AFP quoted him correctly) and the Foreign Affairs Minister (and I hope Hansard is quoting him correctly), even if it IS to Helmand, it won't be for the fight.

Then again, I'm only wild-ass guessing based on what our elected leaders and other senior folks are saying  - and THAT seems to change almost weekly


----------



## Jammer (11 Oct 2009)

...and does anyone think that we could maintain the optempo past 2011? 
Do we extend tour lengths, cease mid-tour HLTA's (MR, I think we had a face to face on this one before we left, not many people were receptive to that.)
So do we stay at Camp Hero and send the ANA out after telling what to do...not good for the credibility, and anyone knows anything about Afghan culture is aware that cannot be done.
No combat role...nonsense! However deliberate operations larger than Coy size...sure I'll buy that one, but there will be the inevitable mission creep.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Oct 2009)

Guess we won't have a mass exodus of people who joined just to go to Afghanistan, just a whole lot of people wanting on a very small number of spots.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2009)

With so many Trades filling up and closing off recruiting, it may be a time for the Training System to finally start playing 'catchup'.


----------



## Jammer (11 Oct 2009)

With the reorg of the Sigs NCM trades It'll be a while before we get anyone here though the pipeline now.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Oct 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> With the reorg of the Sigs NCM trades It'll be a while before we get anyone here though the pipeline now.



Is that not dead yet? Or is it one of those things they just stop talking about so everyone thinks it went away, and then BAM.


----------



## meni0n (11 Oct 2009)

Puck, a guy off his sig op ql3s told me they set the date for 2010.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Oct 2009)

So according to what I have read, you train the Afghan soldier, march him to the gate, shake his hand and say "good luck". then turn around and say "next?"

Maybe we can take over duties in Bamyan? From what I hear it the place needs a lot of help, from the development side and would be easier to protect than Kandahar with the limited size of forces we will be able to deploy.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (11 Oct 2009)

Colin P said:
			
		

> So according to what I have read, you train the Afghan soldier, march him to the gate, shake his hand and say "good luck". then turn around and say "next?"
> 
> Maybe we can take over duties in Bamyan? From what I hear it the place needs a lot of help, from the development side and would be easier to protect than Kandahar with the limited size of forces we will be able to deploy.



Maybe we can fly them to Canada and train them here.Put them back on the plane and wish them luck.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Oct 2009)

I believe NATO would be screwed if we completely left Kandahar and went to reconstruct another province. We've built so many bridges being the only boots on the ground for years, tribal elders would be wary to trust another country's CIMIC groups.

Yes, our troops are strained, but we're only ending the combat role because people at home can't stomach any sort of body count. Maybe they think IEDs are only triggered by the weight of a combat soldier/vehicle, but not a reconstruction/peacekeeper vehicle.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Oct 2009)

I wonder how you guys and the Canadian Government of the Day would react to adopting the practices common in Oman in the 60s and 70s.   Officers and Sr NCOs from UK forces "resigned" from HM forces and went to work for the Sultan.  After a period with the SOAF they then returned to HM service and resumed their careers.  Sort of an "unofficial" secondment sanctioned by HMG.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (11 Oct 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I believe NATO would be screwed if we completely left Kandahar and went to reconstruct another province. We've built so many bridges being the only boots on the ground for years, tribal elders would be wary to trust another country's CIMIC groups.
> 
> Yes, our troops are strained, but we're only ending the combat role because people at home can't stomach any sort of body count. Maybe they think IEDs are only triggered by the weight of a combat soldier/vehicle, but not a reconstruction/peacekeeper vehicle.



Really?I seem to remember a major part of our contribution to Afghanistan only encounter with Afgani people were at the market at Kandahar airfield.
We hold a very small piece of ground,with very few combat troops on the ground.However while I agree Canadian troops have done good in the area,our hauling out of a relatively small number of troops is not gonna leave a huge vacuum.

We always joked about Sparta "I AM CANADA!!!". ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Oct 2009)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I wonder how you guys and the Canadian Government of the Day would react to adopting the practices common in Oman in the 60s and 70s.   Officers and Sr NCOs from UK forces "resigned" from HM forces and went to work for the Sultan.  After a period with the SOAF they then returned to HM service and resumed their careers.  Sort of an "unofficial" secondment sanctioned by HMG.



We'd get sold out for 10,000 Afghani and your head minus body would be on Al-Jazera. Its a nice idea, but the price would never be right, and the security climate is far more volatile.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Oct 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Yes, our troops are strained, but we're only ending the combat role because people at home can't stomach any sort of body count.


Don't kid yourself (not so much you, but anyone who reads this thread).  ANY military role in Kandahar would be against the parliament's wishes. I do acknowledge that the PM need not consult ANYONE to deploy troops; however, the government has said in public that it would seek parliamentary approval if it wished to amend the current government position.


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Oct 2009)

One reason to be there, _Torch_ post:

"Afghan Star": CBC Newsworld, Monday Oct. 12, 10 pm ET/PT 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/afghan-star-cbc-newsworld-monday-oct-12.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Oct 2009)

The Afghan elections and counterinsurgency--according to this view, severe problems with the one by no means negates the possible success of the other (contrary to many nay-sayers):

Counterintuitive counterinsurgency
An illegitimate election in Afghanistan does not mean legitimate American military and political goals can't be met. 
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-fontaine12-2009oct12,0,4934815.story



> As the Obama administration debates whether to stick with the counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan,
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/mcchrstals-afstan-options-and-obamas-al.html
> opponents point to that nation's flawed presidential election as a reason why this approach cannot work. Counterinsurgency is premised, they argue, on the presence of a legitimate national government that can win allegiance from local populations. Given credible allegations of rampant abuse in Afghanistan's August election, President Hamid Karzai's newly illegitimate government cannot play this role. As a result, the United States has little choice but to change strategies.
> 
> ...



Meanwhile, Fareed Zakaria 
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/
seems to be advocating continuing a mix of counterinsurgency and counter-terrorist strategy, with no significant US troop increase:

What Failure in Afghanistan?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/11/AR2009101101552.html

*Update:* As for the McChrystal approach in action:

Advancing Marines test new Afghan war doctrine
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5984ZI20091012



> BARCHA, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Winning ground is one thing. Convincing Afghan villagers you will not leave, abandoning them to a vengeful Taliban, is a bigger challenge for U.S. Marines advancing deep into southern Helmand province.
> 
> The Marines, part of a 10,000-strong force sent to Afghanistan this year, have pushed south into hostile terrain, winning ground and pledging to build the long-term trust and security needed to prevent insurgents from returning...



The conclusion of an earlier _Torch_ post:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/whats-obama-to-do-about-afstan-and-what.html



> ...
> Should President Obama turn down any substantial increase in forces, what's a poor Afghan to conclude? The top US military man in country say more forces are needed or mission failure is possible. The president disagrees. What faith is that Afghan to have that the Taliban won't be back sooner or later? Which horse may he lay side bets on, at a minimum? The PR impact of the US decision-making stinks from an Afghan standpoint--even if those forces are sent, it certainly looks like this administration's commitment is increasingly grudging. Not a happy longer-term prospect for those Afghans unless the ANSF really do get built up and really effective pretty soon.



Ending the CF's "combat operations" at Kandahar 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/canadians-to-train-but-not-mentor.html
(the governmen's latest policy dance step) 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/afstan-post-2011-no-military-mission-or.html
won't be great for Afghan morale in any case.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Oct 2009)

Excerpts from a post by BruceR at _Flit_:

Today's essential Afghan reading
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_10_12.html#006556



> Hands down, Tom Ricks' description of the battle of COP Keating.
> http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/10/the_battle_of_cop_keating_an_earwitness_account
> 
> It was tempting at first to write this off as the latest in what looked like an annual attempt to overrun an American outpost in Nuristan (Ranch House, 2007, Wanat, 2008, now this), but this one is actually more troubling than those others...
> ...



Read the whole piece. More on co-location with the ANA at the *Update* here 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/obamas-got-mccrystals-afghan-numbers.html
(though the above battle is not a happy example).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Oct 2009)

...from _The Independent_:


> Speaking during an official visit to London, Gen-Leslie said: "We are delighted to have British troops serve alongside us and we would be very happy if more are sent. But it is obviously up to the British Government to decide what they want to do."
> 
> The commander said that following losses inflicted by the Taliban, "we took a long, hard look at what needed to be done and I think we are now the best equipped of all Nato troops in Afghanistan".





> The Canadian force is due to pull out in 2011. However, Gen-Leslie told The Independent that after spending £3bn on new equipment including armour and helicopters, and an upsurge in recruiting, his force would be ready to continue with the mission if ordered to do so by the government in Ottawa.



And at least one reporter didn't do their homework:


> The 3,000 Canadian troops, based in the Taliban heartland of Kandahar, have taken part in some of the fiercest fighting of the war, losing 137 personnel.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Oct 2009)

As for an Afghan quagmire--another view of the primaeval--in current "thinking"--one (usual copyright disclaimer, via _Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs_):
http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/257-eng.html

The Real Afghan Lessons From Vietnam
The 'clear and hold' strategy of Gen. Creighton Abrams was working in South Vietnam. Then Congress pulled the plug on funding.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574463024150622310.html



> ...
> In the later years, Abrams ["Gen. Creighton Abrams took command soon after the 1968 Tet Offensive"], along with Ellsworth Bunker (at the head of the embassy in Saigon) and William E. Colby (in charge of support for pacification) devised a more viable approach for conducting the war even as U.S. forces were being incrementally withdrawn.
> 
> Security for the South Vietnamese became the new measure of merit. Instead of "search and destroy," tactical operations were now focused on a "clear and hold" objective. Greatly increased South Vietnamese territorial forces, better trained and equipped and integrated into the regular army, provided the "hold."
> ...



And note there's no Taliban regular army with armour and artillery. Nor likely to be unless they take over Pakistan (or at least get the equipment--not that much of it yet--from defeated, defecting and demoralized units of the ANA if the international military support goes poof).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (13 Oct 2009)

The trouble with history is it is written with rose colored glasses to highlight the good points the author wants to make. The Thieu government/army commanders/the whole infrastructure was rife with massive corruption. The US supported whole paper companies only to find out they were creative schemes by corrupt officers/politicians...

This take on the Viet Nam war is one of the most politically correct/don't slag anyone version I have read in a long time. If there is going to be any lessons learned that might be applicable to Afghanistan, is sure isn't going to be from this bunch of half-truths.....


----------



## X-mo-1979 (13 Oct 2009)

How should we conduct the mission?
Ok I'll bite.real simple.Destroy all marajuana and hash and opium we find.Growing or processed.Use aircraft to napalm the fields at night.There is a very clear report out saying the Taliban are growing and have tons of money due to the drug trade.I'm not a general by no means,but this seems very cut and dry to me.We sleep in the COP's and FOB's surrounded by Opium poppies and weed fields...a few grapes thrown in for the munchies.Burn the money crops.WHY are we not denying them of that?
After having their field napalmed a few times they will smarten up and start growing vegetables to feed their families.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Oct 2009)

From today's _Globe & Mail_, by David Bercuson, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._


> Afghanistan: You can't take politics out of war
> If it had a majority, the Canadian government might change its position on withdrawing its combat troops
> 
> The struggle to prevent a Taliban takeover in Afghanistan goes on, as it must, whatever the latest strategy from the International Security Assistance Force headquarters in Kabul, or the Pentagon, because if it doesn't, the result may well be Taliban governments in both Kabul and Islamabad.
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Oct 2009)

_Torch_ post, with the full video:

PBS _Frontline_: "Obama's War"/Globeite _quagmiritis_
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/pbs-frontline-obamas-war-globeite.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Oct 2009)

More British troops for Afstan announced--with maybes.  One wonders how strict Prime Minister Brown will be about the conditions; interesting stuff about the Americans:

UK sends 500 more to Afghanistan
Gordon Brown says the UK will send 500 more forces personnel to Afghanistan - but only if key conditions are met.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8305922.stm



> They will be sent as long as they have the necessary equipment, if other Nato allies boost their troop numbers and more Afghan soldiers are trained.
> 
> There are currently about 9,000 UK personnel in Afghanistan. Some 221 have been killed there since 2001.
> 
> ...



Maybe this and a little bit more will be all Mr Brown needs (though Georgia is not, er, in NATO):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125547079455583357.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories



> ...
> Georgia is planning to send a battalion of 1,000 troops to volatile *Helmand province* [emphasis added] in southern Afghanistan in the spring, while smaller nations like Macedonia plan to send a few dozen soldiers each. Still, the Afghan war is increasingly the province of the U.S. and a core group of allies, including England and Canada [well,...].
> 
> Separately, Japan said it will end its naval refueling mission in support of U.S.-led operations in Afghanistan in January...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Oct 2009)

...speaking to Global News Edmonton:


> "We are very much planning to have the military mission end in 2011 .... The plan is to move to a civilian, development, humanitarian mission."  Harper said Canada has been increasing its civilian presence on the ground in Afghanistan and "that is very much the direction we are heading .... "Afghans take more responsibility for their own security."



Sigh....


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Oct 2009)

Hurl.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Oct 2009)

Start of a _Torch_ post:

CF commander in Afstan: A "serious, desperate situation"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/cf-commander-in-afstan-serious.html



> The audio (it's important to realize that the overall impression from the interview is a lot less sensational than the Reuters' story below suggests)...



Another one:

Brit battalion to move from KAF to Helmand/Taliban strengthening/Who's the US fighting? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/brit-battalion-to-move-from-kaf-to.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Oct 2009)

Two pieces in _The Economist_ make the case for the McChrystal plan:

Obama's war
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=14644385

Obama's faltering war
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14652443

Not ready to join the herd that thinks the ship is irrevocably sinking:
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/2009/10/tired-cliches-of-afghanistan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Oct 2009)

Start and end of a _Torch_ post:

Brits partnering with ANA units
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/brits-partnering-with-ana-units.html



> Previously on the subject of partnering...
> 
> Now from UK Prime Minister Brown, via _Defence of the Realm_:
> http://defenceoftherealm.blogspot.com/2009/10/afpak-in-house.html
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (16 Oct 2009)

A long interview in "Small Wars Journal" with a veteren of Rhodisia's "Bush War".

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/306-noonan.pdf

Sample:



> Q: The dichotomy between the employment (and degrees) of violence wielded by insurgents and constituted authorities is a point well taken. Though in Mukiwa, you noted that an area in Matabeleland --one in which you spent considerable time and sweat building friendly relationships and sound human intelligence sources--essentially turned "red" after a violent incursion by the Rhodesian Light Infantry. Why do terrorization tactics work to the insurgents' advantage, but backfire so spectacularly when used by government forces?
> 
> A: Because on a balance of terror, they will always tend to win. We arrest people and put them in jail, the insurgents take much more ferocious action. It's the western paradox, but also it’s inherent in asymmetrical conflict. If you are going to lose in the balance of terror, then you have to be able to promise protection in return for support. If you don't have the continuity of presence on the ground to provide civilian population consistent protection then they will feel too exposed and afraid to support you, or be seen to support you. For that you need to stay out among the people, not pull back into secure fire bases, in which you are essentially isolated from the population, and which help to characterize you as an 'invading' force. To some extent the problem can be ameliorated by having Afghan forces, with NATO advisors, provide the continuous presence, but you still need the muscle to protect them because obviously, the danger of that continuous presence is that your forces (Afghan or NATO) are more exposed and vulnerable. And we’ve seen that with the increase of suicide bombing, which aims to counter exactly that mixing. *In a counter-intuitive way, the use of suicide bombing is often actually a sign that the balance of conflict is against the insurgents. It’s an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and the COIN forces, to change the balance of fear audit I spoke about, by making civilians scared to be near govt or NATO forces or institutions*.
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Oct 2009)

Start of a _Torch_ post:

The Taliban are indeed *our* enemy--but, what, me worry? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/taliban-are-indeed-our-enemy-but-what.html



> Quite a few people are now saying that al Qaeda are the real AfPak threat, and the Taliban are just nasties with a local focus (see below). Those people should read this,
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/world/asia/18hostage.html?ref=todayspaper
> by a _NY Times_ reporter held captive for seven months. And that "local threat" includes nuclear-armed Pakistan (again, see below). What, me worry?
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Oct 2009)

The president looking for an out--or applying pressure?

Emanuel says U.S. must gauge viability of government in Kabul
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/AR2009101802261.html



> White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said Sunday that before a decision is made on whether to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, the United States must assess the strength and viability of the Afghan government.
> 
> "It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop level if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the U.S. troops would create and become a true partner in governing the Afghan country," Emanuel said on CNN's "State of the Union."...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Oct 2009)

From Bruce R. at _Flit_, certainly worth the read:

You want to know what I think? I'll tell you what I think
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_10_19.html#006565



> Herschel Smith from Captain's Journal linked to a recent post here.
> http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/10/18/can-an-insurgency-and-counterinsurgency-remain-static/
> His comments suggest he feels I'm guilty of a little ambiguity on my Afghanistan position, so maybe now's a good time to clear it up. My "Afghan position" and $1.50 will buy you a coffee at Tim's, of course, but it's fair to say my own thoughts have been crystallizing of late anyway. So here we go: the big "What Must Be Done?" post. Continue reading if you dare...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Oct 2009)

Much of what Anne Applebaum writes applies to Canada:

The slowly vanishing NATO
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902510.html



> ...
> Only very rarely do the casualties of one country make it into the media, the political debates or the prime ministerial speeches of another country. There has been an international coalition operating in Afghanistan since 2001. NATO has been in charge of that coalition since 2003. Yet to read the British press, one would think the British are there almost alone, fighting a war in which they have no national interest. The same is true in France and in the Netherlands. American media outlets hardly note the participation of other countries, even though some -- Britain and Canada -- have endured casualties at a higher rate than that of the U.S. military, relative to the size of their contingents.
> 
> There is almost no sense anywhere that the war in Afghanistan is an international operation, or that the stakes and goals are international, or that the soldiers on the ground represent anything other than their own national flags and national armed forces: Most of the war's European critics want to know why their boys are fighting "for the Americans," not for NATO. Most of the American critics dismiss the European contribution as useless or ignore it altogether. As Jackson Diehl pointed out Monday,
> ...



Meanwhile the SecDef seems to be rather opposing the White House line:

Gates: Afghanistan war strategy should come first
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jzA0Whh_1id_XIqXstD76TAO4qbwD9BEH88G0



> ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY JET — The Obama administration needs to decide on a war strategy for Afghanistan without waiting for a government there to be widely accepted as legitimate, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday.
> 
> Gates' comments put him at odds with top White House and NATO officials who are balking at ordering more troops and other resources to Afghanistan until the disputed election crisis there is resolved...
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Oct 2009)

_Torch_ post:

While Washington deliberates...Gen McChyrstal is implementing his COIN strategy 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/while-washington-deliberatesgen.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Oct 2009)

More at _The Torch_:

Gobsmacking cynicism, or, gosh, what's an Afghan to think, eh? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/gobsmacking-cynicism-or-gosh-whats.html



> ...
> Mr Wells, move to Afstan. And eat your own cleverness.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Oct 2009)

Good and bad news:

1) Good news, well, er, coordinated:

In Helmand, a model for success?
Influx of Marines and focus on security bring peace to a southern Afghan town -- at least for now [with photo gallery]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR2009102104144.html?sid=ST2009102104197

There’s No Substitute for Troops on the Ground 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/opinion/22boot.html?th&emc=th

2) Bad news:

Militants deepen their foothold in Afghanistan's north
The Taliban and others wield power brazenly in the once-stable region. Roadblocks and ambushes are now part of life for the nervous population.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-north22-2009oct22,0,715306.story

More on Kunduz here 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/afstan-reaction-to-kunduz-airstrikea.html
and here.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-bundeswehr-doesnt-fight-much-in.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Oct 2009)

At the _Torch_:

Eric and the Tablibs 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/eric-and-tablibs.html

Inside Afstan...and out ["out" very...]
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/inside-afstanand-out.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Oct 2009)

Start of a _Torch_ post:

Agincourt... and counterinsurgency? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/agincourt-and-counterinsurgency.html



> Further to this post,
> 
> *Agincourt and...Afstan? Update: And Winston*
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/agincourt-andafstan.html
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Oct 2009)

Start of another _Torch_ post:

Afstan: Obamamiddlesplittingstrategy
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/afstan-obamamiddlesplittingstrategy.html



> Earlier,
> 
> *...Round and round the mulberry bush*
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/afstan-round-and-round-mulberry-bush.html
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Oct 2009)

From BruceR. at _Flit_:

Today's essential Afghan reading
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_10_28.html#006574



> ...We have been trying, with all the best of intentions, to work against the grain of an established society (of which both AWK [see here]
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html?hp
> and the Khostis who dislike the New Model ANA are a part), relying on the military's ability to build anew, or at least keep the roads open while Afghans do. But neither armies nor Afghans are known for building things very well. (Armies excise, break, smash quite effectively, no question.) The results have become evidently suboptimal, and smart people like the Zabul diplomat are getting discouraged. You could say "well, start working along the grain then." And that might have been an option as late as 2005. But the infrastructure, the investment, the sunk cost involved in the current society-renewal strategy in places like Helmand and Kandahar has become so massive, widespread and pervasive since, that I'm thinking you can't just wind it back down easily anymore. Societies have this in common with both subatomic particles and sensitive environments: the mere act of observing them, let alone trying to change them, distorts their progress. Our presence has taken parts of Afghanistan down a road they never would have gone down on their own. And that means we're inevitably going to be somewhat less able to restore them to something it once was, or allow them to choose their own way now, because of all that we have committed to preserving all that we've built so far.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Oct 2009)

Terry Glavin on Capt. Simon Mailloux, amongst other things especially regarding President Karzai's brother and the CIA:

Afghanistan: It's Always The Context You'll Want To Keep Your Eye On. 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/10/afghanistan-its-always-context-youll.html



> ...
> "Bravery is not an American monopoly. Most allies report many soldiers volunteering to return to Afghanistan despite the increased violence. A Canadian officer who lost his leg in a roadside bomb attack in 2007 recently returned to Kandahar, in his words, 'to do good.'..."
> [ http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/89337.0.html ]
> 
> A confession: A clandestine "Kandahar Strike Force" composed of slightly brutish Afghan gunmen who are perhaps insufficiently inclined to the delicate sensibilities of the American Civil Liberties Union yet vaguely responsive to the suggestions of certain characters in the otherwise unremarkable suburb of Langley, Virginia, is not something I find altogether displeasing at the moment...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Oct 2009)

Start of a _Torch_ post:

Afstan post 2011: Why should MND MacKay care very much? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/afstan-post-2011-why-should-mnd-mackay.html



> After all, the prime minister said recently:
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5guPUzhF_gDkR2VYDuJnhffp7NNuw
> 
> '...
> "Canada's military mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011," Harper told reporters. "And we will not be extending the military mission, period."..'...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Oct 2009)

Start of another _Torch_ post, by Babbling Brooks:

The Third Way: Ending the Illusions in Afghanistan - Part 1 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/third-way-ending-illusions-in.html



> _I have recently had the honour and pleasure of corresponding with Shane Schreiber, a decorated Army officer currently serving in the CF. He has written an article outlining some of the problems and potential solutions in Afghanistan, as he sees them, and we are publishing it here at The Torch.
> 
> Personally, I believe his perspective is well worth your consideration: Schreiber has numerous overseas operational deployments, including two tours in Afghanistan - one as a Company Commander in Kandahar in 2002, and another as Chief of Joint Operations for ISAF Regional Command South Headquarters, Kandahar in 2006. He holds three post-secondary degrees, and is an award-winning author on military affairs.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Nov 2009)

More from Lt.-Col. Shane Schreiber:

The Third Way: Ending the Illusions in Afghanistan - Part 2
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/third-way-ending-illusions-in.html

And from _Maclean's_: 

Afghanistan: Noble fight or lost cause?
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/01/afghanistan-noble-fight-or-lost-cause/print/



> _On Nov. 10, Maclean’s will present a round table discussion on “Afghanistan: Noble Fight or Lost Cause?” at the Neptune Theatre in Halifax, the second in a series of talks. The debate, broadcast live nationwide on CPAC, will feature Scott Taylor, a former soldier and the publisher and editor of Esprit de Corps, and Mercedes Stephenson, military analyst and vice-president of Breakout Educational Network, among others. The event will be moderated by CPAC’s Peter Van Dusen, and include Maclean’s columnists Paul Wells and Andrew Coyne as panellists. Click here for tickets.
> http://www2.macleans.ca/in-conversation-with-macleans/
> 
> This week, Wells and Coyne kick off the discussion..._



To be televised Tuesday, November 10 at 7 pm ET /8pm AT /4pm PT:
http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&section_id=24&template_id=1266&lang=e

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Nov 2009)

What to do about Afstan? BruceR. responds to Shane Schreiber.  First from Shane Schreiber (with link to Part 1),

The Third Way: Ending the Illusions in Afghanistan - Part 2
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/third-way-ending-illusions-in.html

now the start of a post at _Flit_:

Today's... I don't know what this is, frankly
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_11_03.html#006575



> At serious risk of breaking the stones-glass houses rule, I feel compelled to write something here about another Canadian military online essayist.
> 
> The fellow behind this post
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/third-way-ending-illusions-in.html
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Nov 2009)

US COIN operations on PowerPoint--from Paul at _Celestial Junk_:
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2009/11/outstanding-powerpoint.html



> *If you've got a bit* of time and are interested, the following two PowerPoint presentations offer an incredible insight into US COIN operations in Afghanistan...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Nov 2009)

From today's _Globe & Mail_:


> Preparations have begun for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan, as the 2011 deadline for that withdrawal draws closer.
> 
> A government official confirmed media reports that General Walter Natynczyk, the Chief of the Defence Staff, has ordered preparations to get under way that would involve the return of the thousands of troops and their equipment from the troubled country.
> 
> ...



Ooooooooookay, the Globe gets one for the scoop of "Ok, folks, get ready to get out", but zero on the follow-up - did anyone ask the "government official" happy to be quoted without attribution what's going to be left (if anything)?


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Nov 2009)

....as quoted by the _Toronto Star_:


> "I've put out instructions back in August on our planning and preparation with regard to 2011," he said. "Our allies are well aware, NATO is well aware of our intentions because ... it takes a year or so to prepare all the troops ... to replace us .... I don't have additional knowledge of where the laydown is, but I would say the chances are that the U.S. will continue to replace what we're doing in Kandahar province .... That would be at this point my assumption."


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Nov 2009)

"I'm shocked, shocked" to find that the CDS is doing one of his jobs: planning.

Actually I'm stunned to find that it's "news."


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Nov 2009)

As an ex-DGMPO wallah, I'm actually stunned that planning has not started already. In fact, I would bet that various courses of action have been staff checked/war gamed and more than a few folks have a pretty good handle on what has to be done.


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Nov 2009)

The end of a _Torch_ post:

Afstan: Planning to end (most of?) the CF's mission/*Update: Dutch and Aussies* 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/afstan-planning-to-end-most-of-cfs.html



> ...
> Hardly "crystal-clear". The prime minister says the "military mission" will end. The MND says the "combat mission" will end. Dance, dance, dance. The 2008 Commons' resolution says the CF will be out of Kandahar by December, 2011--not out of Afstan.
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/afstan-what-commons-resolutions-says.html
> The government's lack of simple clarity on its most important defence and foreign policy matter is embarrassing and disgraceful.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2009)

CDS to CanWest:  We're going by the March 2008 motion, but we can change if we're told:


> “It’s still a year-and-a-half away; we’ve launched operations on less than that, but I can’t assume that”



KPRT commander to Canadian Press:  tone down expectations:


> A high – ranking Canadian soldier who is assuming a key role in Afghanistan says Canadians need to temper their expectations ahead of a planned pullout for 2011.  Brig.-Gen. Steve Bowes has begun a one-year deployment as the International Security Assistance Force’s deputy chief of plans and projects. He says Canadians shouldn’t have delusions about quick success in Afghanistan.



_Globe & Mail_ tea leaf contribution:


> Although the Conservatives have yet to make it clear, it’s expected hundreds of soldiers may need to remain behind to protect reconstruction and development. Retired major-general Lewis Mackenzie guesses up to 500 or 600 soldiers would stay in Afghanistan to keep watch over Canadian development projects or even to train local army and police.
> 
> The Harper government has so far been reluctant to spell out how many soldiers are staying behind after the 2011 pullout. During the 2008 election campaign, the Prime Minister acknowledged that not every single soldier will return with the combat pullout, and it’s expected lingering pressure from the Obama administration to help out may lead to a contingent remaining.
> 
> Military analysts speculated that Gen. Natynczyk’s decision to draw attention to withdrawal planning this week – his orders to make plans were actually given last summer – may have been an effort to force Ottawa to make clear its post-2011 intentions in Afghanistan.



Pulling it together a bit here and here.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Nov 2009)

Start of a _Torch_ post:

President Obama nearing Afghan decision/Ospreys in Helmand
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/president-obama-nearing-afghan.html



> Likely big consequences at Kandahar...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Nov 2009)

Related:

Afstan: Brits to reduce combat effort to win public support? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/afstan-brits-to-reduce-combat-effort-to.html



> My word. Three stories...
> 
> No wonder another US combat brigade, likely Marines, seems wanted for Helmand. If the Brits go really dovish, it will effectively be the US doing almost all the fighting alone. Sad. What an "alliance".



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Nov 2009)

Two at _The Torch_:

*CDS serves a hard Afghan ball to the government*
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/cds-serves-hard-one-to-government.html



> The ball is now very firmly in their court. Time soon to end their dancing. Good on General Natynczyk, after having been much quieter that his predecessor, for coming through loud and clear...



*Afghan ball still in Obama's court...*
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/afghan-ball-in-obamas-court.html



> ...awaiting return of General McChrystal's serve...



Mark
Ottawaw


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Nov 2009)

Obamastan: serve returned, tiebreaker drags on.  Back to the drawing board (sort of) after eight meetings:

1) *Obama said to want revised Afghanistan options*
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan



> President Barack Obama won't accept any of the Afghanistan war options before him without changes, administration officials say, amid an argument by his own ambassador in Kabul that a significant U.S. troop increase would only prop up a weak, corruption-tainted government.
> 
> Obama's ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, who is also a former commander in Afghanistan, is voicing strong dissent against sending more forces, according to an administration official. This puts him at odds with the current war commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is seeking thousands more troops.
> 
> ...



2) *U.S. Envoy Urges Caution on Forces for Afghanistan*
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/us/politics/12policy.html?_r=1&hp



> ...
> General Eikenberry sent his reservations to Washington in a cable last week, the officials said. In that same period, President Obama and his national security advisers have begun examining an option that would send relatively few troops to Afghanistan, about 10,000 to 15,000, with most designated as trainers for the Afghan security forces.
> 
> This low-end option was one of four alternatives under consideration by Mr. Obama and his war council at a meeting in the White House Situation Room on Wednesday afternoon. The other three options call for troop levels of around 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000, the three officials said.
> ...



What a sieve.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Nov 2009)

Start of a (long) _Torch_ post:

How deal with Afstan, AfPak, Indo/Pak, and al Qaeda/*Update* on strong horses 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-deal-with-afstan-afpak-indopak-and.html



> Steve Coll is the author of _Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001_, probably the best contemporary history of those events. Last month he wrote serious think piece in _Foreign Policy_ about the way ahead for US Afghan policy and related issues (thanks to Terry Glavin for bringing it to attention).
> 
> I think the first part on Afstan itself is very good. The second, on Pakistan (and India) much weaker and over-optimistic. The third, on al Qaeda, hits the mark. The fourth, on setting up a durable Afghan polity, makes a lot of sense. But how to achieve it?
> 
> Some excerpts...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Nov 2009)

Post-2011: MND MacKay is still dancing the Afghan fling--is still obfuscating:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/11/13/mackay-karzai-afghanistan.html



> ...
> MacKay also addressed the future role of Canadian forces in Kandahar, saying the plan of Canada's top commander to withdraw all of the country's soldiers from Kandahar by 2011 was consistent with the government's own stance.
> 
> Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk had told CBC News in an exclusive interview that the parliamentary motion on the Afghan mission specifies that it ends in July 2011, and that means the pullout of Canadian Forces.
> ...



The Commons' resolution says out of Kandahar. Period. But not Afstan. What is the government going to propose, presumably for a Commons' vote, and when? This is getting seriously ridiculous.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Nov 2009)

Terry Glavin savages _Globeite_ St. Rick Salutin (a live sheep):

Don't follow leaders. Watch the parking meters.
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/11/dont-follow-leaders-watch-parking.html



> ...
> 2. Who would write that the Taliban were grudgingly tolerated by Afghans, and it was because of the "honesty, integrity and good performance from all levels of government" the Taliban delivered? American white-nationalist and revisionist David Duke? British National Party leader and "anti-war" windbag Nick Griffin? Nope, neither. It was "left-wing" Canadian columnist Rick Salutin who wrote that, in the Globe and Mail today.
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/think-remembrance-then-think-rebranding/article1361477/
> 
> The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles [check the video]...



More on St. Rick at the end of this _Torch_ post.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/11/acid-test.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2009)

Dithering into disaster.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/12/obama-us-troops-afghanistan-kilcullen



> *Barack Obama 'risks Suez-like disaster' in Afghanistan, says key adviser*
> 
> Leading authority on counter-insurgency fears US is heading for 'irresponsible' fudge on extra troops
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Nov 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The Commons' resolution says out of Kandahar. Period. But not Afstan. What is the government going to propose, presumably for a Commons' vote, and when? This is getting seriously ridiculous.


And a little something to add to everyone's head-shaking:  calls for almost $6M CAD in infrastructure work (honkin' maintenance hangar plus AFV maintenance shop) to be done @ KAF - 
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/90186/post-890900#msg890900


----------



## dapaterson (16 Nov 2009)

Interesting article in Embassy magazine, asking why so few Canadians in DFAIT, CIDA and PCO can speak local languages, primarily Dari and Pashtu.

http://embassymag.ca/page/view/diplomats_afghanistan-11-11-2009

I'd expand the question space to the CF as well - since 2002, we've sent how many on language training for those two languages, compared to how many on Spanish, Korean or other languages so they can take a year at a foreign staff school?  "Selection and maintenance of the aim" would suggest that the success of the deployment to Afghanistan plays second fiddle to maintaining jammy goes for Majors...


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Nov 2009)

From a former CDS, recently returned from Afstan:
http://cda-cdai.ca/cda/commentary/afghanistan/sleepwalk021109



> ...The media’s preoccupation with ramp ceremonies at the expense of analytical reporting of events in the field has distorted the picture, as has editorial pressure to focus on bad news while ignoring less newsworthy successes.
> 
> Canadians’ misunderstanding of the reality in Afghanistan can also be excused in that they have scarcely benefitted from a rational political debate about the situation. The silence from the Conservative Government on the issue has been no less than stunning, especially in regard to what will happen when the fast-approaching parliamentary deadline of July 2011 arrives. Strong convictions are held by many analysts (myself included) that the imposition in early 2008 of the 2011 deadline by Parliament was a serious mistake. For one thing it sent an unfortunate message, not just to our enemy, but to our 41 allies in the International Security Assistance Force, telling them that Canada is no longer interested in saving Afghanistan from a return to power by the Taliban. It is a dismaying message to the people of Afghanistan, who desperately want us to stay. It gives other nations whose own publics might be wavering an excuse for reducing or extracting their military forces, which inevitably imposes a heavy burden on the Americans, whose contribution already far exceeds that of its allies.
> 
> ...



And from Brian Platt at _The Canada-Afghanistan Blog_:

Brave Women 
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/2009/11/brave-women.html



> Malalai Joya is now touring the Vancouver area with her new book, "A Woman Among Warlords". (I'm not going to link to it.) In general, she receives fawning press coverage. You'll often see her quoted as the "bravest woman in Afghanistan", which is apparently what the BBC dubbed her.
> 
> I went to a presentation of hers on Friday afternoon, and this is her message: Canadians troops need to leave now, the status of women is worse than ever, and the current government under Karzai is just as bad as the Taliban government was. There is no hope for the future until the United Nations and NATO leave Afghanistan alone. I'm not simplifying anything; that's all she says, over and over again.
> 
> ...



Read on for the brave women.  Plus from Terry Glavin:

An Encounter With The Latest Poster Girl For Dizzy, Bourgeois Vanity. 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/11/encounter-with-latest-poster-girl-for.html



> ...
> It is only in "the west" that she serves any purpose. She can be summoned as a sort of celebrity spokesmodel for that caste of the west's rich liberals who have a weird need to believe the lie that there is something "feminist" or "progressive" in the narcissistic, reactionary isolationism they have adopted as the defining mark of their own political virtue. It's the reason why so much effort is expended in building up a cult of celebrity around Joya. That's all that's going on here. It has absolutely nothing to do with what Afghan women want or need...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Nov 2009)

A comment by Primus at this _Torch_ post:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/afghanistan-general-disarray.html



> "Homage to a Government"
> --Philip Larkin, 1969
> 
> Next year we are to bring all the soldiers home
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Nov 2009)

At the _Torch_:

Big Canadian operation at Kandahar ignored/Other CF Afstan news
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/big-canadian-operation-at-kandahar.html



> So far only the _Globe and Mail_ (good on them, but a rather, er, curt story) has seen fit to report this; most of our media only pretend to cover the CF at Kanadahar, and don't even use what is reported--see second story...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Nov 2009)

Steve Coll of the _New Yorker_ is right on the mark, in my view:

What If We Fail in Afghanistan?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/stevecoll/2009/11/what-if-we-fail-in-afghanistan.html



> Last week, I found myself at yet another think tank-type meeting about Afghan policy choices. Toward the end, one of the participants, who had long experience in government, asked a deceptively simple question: What would happen if we failed?
> 
> First, the question requires a definition of failure. As I’ve argued, in my view, a purpose of American policy in Afghanistan ought to be to prevent a second coercive Taliban revolution in that country, not only because it would bring misery to Afghans (and, not incidentally, Afghan women) but because it would jeopardize American interests, such as our security against Al Qaeda’s ambitions and our (understandable) desire to see nuclear-armed Pakistan free itself from the threat of revolutionary Islamist insurgents. So, then, a definition of failure would be a redux of Taliban revolution in Afghanistan—a revolution that took control of traditional Taliban strongholds such as Kandahar and Khost, and that perhaps succeeded in Kabul as well. Such an outcome is conceivable if the Obama Administration does not discover the will and intelligence to craft a successful political-military strategy to prevent the Afghan Taliban from achieving its announced goals, which essentially involve the restoration of the Afghan state they presided over during the nineteen-nineties, which was formally known as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



An earlier _Torch_ post on Mr Coll:

How to deal with Afstan, AfPak, Indo/Pak, and al Qaeda/Update on strong horses
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-deal-with-afstan-afpak-indopak-and.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Nov 2009)

_Globeites_ hard at their agenda --from _Norman's Spectator_:
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/MIND.htm



> ...
> 
> --*What the Globe reported on Afstan yesterday*
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Nov 2009)

Start of a _Torch_ post:

New Canadian commander at Kandahar/More US troops to be under his command? 



> Interesting development, see speculation about the US unit at the end...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2009)

Let's look at these torture allegations again, shall we:

http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.com/2009/11/trip-down-memory-lane-on-torture-and.html



> *A trip down memory lane on torture and Liberal spin.*
> (Reproduced from the original post April 26, 2007.)
> 
> I find the Liberals to be full of nostalgia as of late for a time when they were still in power. For them everything was rosy and much better than it is today, take the Afghan prisoner ruckus that the Liberals and their close friends are trying to milk for all it is worth as an example.
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Nov 2009)

At the _Torch_:

More on the consequences of failing in Afstan 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-on-conequences-of-failing-in.html

Canadian reliance on US forces for protection of development (and other) efforts/Dutch update 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/canadian-reliance-on-us-forces-for.html

NATO/US "surge" in Afstan? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/natous-surge-in-afstan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Nov 2009)

Back to militias?  News story in _NY Times_:

As Afghans Resist Taliban, U.S. Spurs Rise of Militias 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/world/asia/22militias.html?ref=todayspaper



> ACHIN, Afghanistan — American and Afghan officials have begun helping a number of anti-Taliban militias that have independently taken up arms against insurgents in several parts of Afghanistan, prompting hopes of a large-scale tribal rebellion against the Taliban.
> 
> The emergence of the militias, which took some leaders in Kabul by surprise, has so encouraged the American and Afghan officials that they are planning to spur the growth of similar armed groups across the Taliban heartland in the southern and eastern parts of the country.
> 
> ...



And a _Washington Post_ column by David Ignatius:

Afghan tribes to the rescue?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112002617.html



> While military officers wait for President Obama to conclude his agonizingly slow review of Afghanistan policy, they've been reading a paper by an Army Special Forces operative arguing that the only hope for success in that country is to work with tribal leaders.
> 
> This tribal approach has widespread support, in principle. The problem is that, in practice, the United States has often moved in the opposite direction in recent years. Rather than supporting tribal leaders, American policies have sometimes had the effect of undermining their ability to stand up to the Taliban.
> 
> ...



_Torch_ post this April:

The US and the Afghan Public Protection Force
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/us-and-afghan-public-protection-force.html



> AKA in some quarters as "militias"...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Nov 2009)

Rick Hillier is reported to be testifying before the Commons Committee this week. I expect he will tell it like it is and put the NDP and the LPC members of the Committee in their place. Not listed on the CPAC website yet.


----------



## Journeyman (23 Nov 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ...and put the NDP and the LPC members of the Committee in their place.


With no discernable effect on their thinking


----------



## observor 69 (23 Nov 2009)

I think Mackay would get better milage by sticking closer to the truth instead of the usual CPC/Harper tactic of discredit  the messanger. 
What to do with Afghan prisoners was an issue with no good options as explained in Rosie DiManno's article:


DiManno: Disdain for U.S. led to Afghan torture fiasco
November 23, 2009

Rosie DiManno


Perhaps convenient amnesia has set in. But few of those clawing at their faces today in angst and shame over who-knew-what-when-generated hysteria with regard to mistreatment of Afghan detainees have paused to recall how this mess originated.

It's because Canada picked Afghans over Americans as front-line allies.

This was not done out of respect for Afghan sovereignty – their right to assume custody of prisoners captured on their own soil. Damn well known from the start was the lay of the land in a war-ravaged country and medieval society: jails of unimaginable wretchedness, guards desensitized to violence and cruelty who'd never heard of the Geneva Conventions and would double over in laughter if informed of its contents, no justice system to speak of, and the overwhelming power exerted by the feared National Directorate of Security whose torturer-in-chief, while denying any physical abuse of detainees, once told the Star that "interrogation is not negotiation, it's not chatting over coffee."

It was a disastrous decision and, despite probing repeatedly at it over several years, I've never been able to ascertain, indisputably, who was to blame as primary architect of the policy, nor why it was thus constructed.

Was it a military decision influenced by domestic politics? Or was it a political decision fronted by top-tier military commanders who are, after all, a particular brand of civil servants? Until Gen. Rick Hillier came along, the breed had historically done government's bidding and kept their mouths shut. Hillier opened his and roared – his "scumbags," as descriptor for Taliban militants, endlessly quoted by the forces of moral equivalency and military-loathing holdovers from the peacekeeping generation. Because, apparently, in the Canadian matrix of military and diplomacy, enemy combatants blowing up your soldiers with roadside bombs or murdering their fellow Afghans – teachers, nurses, aid workers and the like – shouldn't be, you know, called bad names.

There was a 2005 prisoner agreement, negotiated by Hillier. "At the time, we felt that was the right thing to do,'' he told the Star three years ago, when the previously unpublicized document hit the headlines following media reports of appalling abuse inflicted on detainees transferred to Afghan custody. No provision had been put in place to independently monitor their treatment afterwards.

The issue of torture-by-proxy went viral and a new agreement was written to replace the old and, for a period of months, no transfers were allowed until someone decided the inserted safeguards were sufficient to protect prisoners' human rights, as determined by this country. But that episode began the federal government's shuck-and-dodge strategy of constantly underplaying the seriousness of the allegations and what had been a monumental lapse of judgment in the first place.

The original agreement was crafted against the miserable backdrop of Abu Ghraib, a scandal of shocking proportions that had exploded in the U.S. media a year previous. Given the toxic view of American forces – no matter that the horrific mistreatment of Iraqi detainees was, at least in terms of supporting evidence, limited to specific rogue units in one notorious facility – it was clearly decided, by who knows whom, Canada could not put detainees in such soiled hands, despite the U.S. being this country's closest nation-friend.

Someone bought into the dubious premise that the entire American military was not to be trusted and that Afghan wardens, Afghan guards, Afghan officials, were preferable partners in the disposition of detainees, although the only remotely up-to-Western-par prison facility was at the American base in Bagram.

Canada did not have the resources to build its own detention facility in Kandahar. And, even if such a building could have been constructed, there was no way to staff it with our own rights-conscious people. If such a prison had ever been erected, it would still have been placed in Afghan hands for management because that has been, throughout, the Canadian/ISAF mantra – Afghan-led everything.

That was the original sin, as has become ever more evident, because Afghanistan is nowhere near ready, all these years on from the 2001 invasion and ouster of the Taliban regime, to administer itself. Corruption has worsened, security is at an all-time low and most Afghans don't give a fig about how militants are treated or mistreated.

This is the one note that rings untrue in the whistle-blowing memos distributed by diplomat Richard Colvin — a contention that the insurgency would gain impetus because Afghans were outraged by the torture of the detainees. While it certainly has been used as a recruiting tool by the Taliban and Al Qaeda, few Afghans beyond the families of those incarcerated – often without legitimate cause, since so many were subsequently released – have much pity for Taliban rank-and-file. They are too busy simply trying to survive poverty and chronic violence.

So let's be clear: This isn't about Afghans, it's about us – what we deem the standards of conduct should be, even in a lawless, chaotic hellhole like Afghanistan.

Colvin has done nothing to deserve the character assassination unleashed last week by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's pitbulls. He appears to have tried to fulfill diplomatic responsibility with integrity. But he is colossally naive if truly believing the mission's merits were contaminated by the detainee sidebar.

Canadian troops should certainly not be made to wear a "T" for torturer-enablers on their forehead because they followed the instructions as issued. It was the politicians in Ottawa who dropped them in that unsavory position. And, frankly, it was a vocally anti-American attitude, a crescendo of Canadian moral superiority, which sent those politicians and their mandarins scurrying for a palatable option in the detention of prisoners.

Those who now toss around words like "shame" and "national disgrace" should examine their own complicity in Canada pursuing such a peril-fraught alternative to detention by those damned Yankees.



LINK


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Nov 2009)

And for something completely different. This comment, reproduced under the fair comment provisions of the copyright act, is taken from:  http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2009/11/whispers-of-surrender-in-afgha/

Note that it is single source from a Saudi paper and is unconfirmed. 

Whispers of Surrender in Afghanistan?
It comes to our attention that the MEMRI Blog highlights an article from the Saudi al-Watan in Arabic that - according to an Afghan source - the United States is talking to the Taliban seeking to trade control of 5 provinces in exchange for the cessation of attacks on US bases. MEMRI summarizes:

An Afghan source in Kabul reports that U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry is holding secret talks with Taliban elements headed by the movement's foreign minister, Ahmad Mutawakil, at a secret location in Kabul. According to the source, the U.S. has offered the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.

Kunar province borders the Khyber Pass region where the majority of US and NATO supplies pass enroute from Pakistan. And the remaining four provinces constitute fully the southern 25% of Afghanistan's territory.

This, if true, is a disturbing development.

I have tried to come up with scenarios of why someone would lie about it in a leak. What would be to gain? Who would gain, and what would they gain? Without sleeping on it, the options for such appear narrow at best.

What does seem logical is that an Afghan privy to the negotiations could have become (rightly) spooked that they might just pull it off, and leaked word in hopes that it might so anger American public opinion that the entire endeavor might be scrapped. That's the most logical explanation for motivation I see at the moment.

It would also fit in consistently with Ambassador Eikenberry's leaked cables recently railing against a 'surge' in forces in Afghanistan. He wouldn't voice such without thinking he has his hands on something else. Could this be it? The surrender of 25% of Afghan territory in exchange for some form of ceasefire?

One would hope not. But if so, this demonstrated type of 'effort' in Afghanistan would prove to be the strongest indication that it may be time to advocate the full pullout of American forces from Afghanistan. 

If this is true, then not one more drop of American blood for a path that resembles Pakistan's path. You recall Pakistan's series of surrenders touted as agreements, right?


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Nov 2009)

Funny this - the latest RUMINT of such talks seems to be leading to a LOAD of "we're surrendering" commentary this past week or so, while similar RUMINT in the past drew nowhere near as much attention, like earlier this month.

Admittedly, this IS a higher level of detail from previous rumours of mediated talks between the US, Saudi Arabia and the Taliban, but we've also heard what the Taliban had to say about other alleged sets of discussions (links to pro-jihadi web sites, so mind your IP information):

“Ours is the same old stand there is no other way except jihad in Afghanistan until the invader forces are present in Afghanistan. If you wait for 3000 years, our stand is the same that Taliban will never hold talks in presence of invader forces in Afghanistan.” (13 Mar 09)

“A dialogue which is in favour of Afghanistan and Islam it will never be hidden from the nation. Our struggle will continue until the departure of all foreign troops.“ (28 Sept 08)

“The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has neither held talks in Saudi Arabia nor in the United Arab Emirates nor in any other place. I did not send a letter to the leader of the Islamic government of Saudi Arabia, the custodian of Haramain, Mr. Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz, or to the opposition officials. Additionally, I have not received any formal message from any of the aforementioned entities. These reports are completely baseless and are part of a planned propaganda campaign created by the enemy. (Signed) The servant of Islam and the Leader of the Believers, Mullah Mohammad Omar Mujahid” (23 Dec 08)

Hmmm, wonder who would want to show the U.S. president (or any Western leader with troops in AFG) as weak?


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Nov 2009)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/23/obama-lock-afghanistan-decision/

Updated November 24, 2009

*Official: Obama to Announce Afghan War Strategy Decision on Dec. 1*
by  
FOXNews.com 

The president will address the nation next Tuesday on his vision of the way forward in Afghanistan, a White House official told Fox News.
More on link. 

Prime Time of course.


----------



## observor 69 (24 Nov 2009)

And from the New York Times:

November 24, 2009, 7:26 am

Afghan Address Planned for Next Week
By JEFF ZELENY
President Obama has conducted a final meeting on his military review for Afghanistan, administration officials said, and he is planning to explain his decision in an address to the nation next Tuesday.

“After completing a rigorous final meeting, President Obama has the information he wants and needs to make his decision and he will announce that decision within days,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday morning.

For two hours on Monday evening, Mr. Obama held his ninth meeting in the Situation Room with his war council. The session began at 8:13 p.m., aides said, and ended at 10:10 p.m.

The president’s military and national security advisers came back to the president with answers he had requested during previous meetings, most of which focusing on these questions: Where are the off-ramps for the military? And what is the exit strategy?

Mr. Obama did not announce his specific decision to his advisers. He is scheduled to stay at the White House over the Thanksgiving holiday to finish making his decision, as the White House plans to prepare for what could be Mr. Obama’s first prime-time address to the nation from the Oval Office.

But the venue of the announcement has not been finalized. While an Oval Office address fits the gravity of the moment, one official said Tuesday that a full-length speech – rather than a short message, delivered as the president sits behind a desk – is a more likely way for Mr. Obama to explain one of the most important decisions yet in his presidency.

A growing part of the discussion at the White House is the cost of sending more troops to Afghanistan, as detailed in an article by Eric Schmitt and Helene Cooper in today’s Times. 

For the first time, Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, joined the group of advisers in the Situation Room on Monday evening. A photograph released by the White House shows Mr. Orszag sitting four seats away from the president, next to Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

As the White House prepares for how the president will explain his decision to the nation, the president is trying to allay deep concerns inside his own party.

The first in a series of meetings with Congressional leaders comes on Tuesday, when Mr. Obama plans to meet at 3:10 p.m. in the Oval Office with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. That meeting is to be followed by a private session with Mr. Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates at 4:30 p.m.

The White House is preparing for the president’s announcement to take place next Tuesday evening, aides said, which would likely be followed by hearings in the House and Senate. But the date could be changed, one official said, depending on briefings with Congress and allied leaders.

While the president is expected by several of his advisers to announce sending more than 20,000 new troops – perhaps closer to the 40,000, as recommended by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal – the White House is working to make the announcement more than simply a number of troops. It will include an outline of an exit strategy, officials said.

LINK


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Nov 2009)

Lots more at Foreign Policy's "AfPak Channel", with links:

Daily brief: Obama expected to announce Afghanistan decision December 1
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/24/daily_brief_obama_expected_to_announce_afghanistan_decision_december_1



> Getting closer
> 
> Around 20 members of U.S. President Barack Obama's national security team met for the ninth or tenth time last night to discuss the situation in Afghanistan, and rumors are coalescing around "early next week" for the president to announce his decision of a "middle-ground option that would deploy an eventual 32,000 to 35,000 U.S. forces" to the Afghan theater (AP, NPR, Reuters, AP, AFP). Politico, Reuters, NPR, and McClatchy all report the much-anticipated decision will come in a presidential television address on December 1 (Politico, Reuters, NPR, McClatchy)...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson (24 Nov 2009)

Interesting graphical representation of data from the GUardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/nov/13/information-beautiful-afghanistan


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Nov 2009)

Sort of make or break for the COIN campaign (useful graphic at end, usual copyright disclaimer):

Surge Targets Taliban Bastion
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125910374196463061.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEThirdNews



> Commanders in Afghanistan say they will devote the majority of the fresh troops expected from the White House to securing the country's troubled south and will especially target this volatile city, the Taliban's main power base.
> 
> View Full Image
> AU.S. soldier snaps an image of anAfghan man's iris to be used for identification. Commanders will concentrate any newtroops in the southern part of the country, putting a ring around the Taliban power base of Kandahar.
> ...



Improving links with the ANA is not as easy as perhaps it should be--and other intelligence challenges:

U.S. intelligence chief in Afghanistan wages battle for resources
Maj. Gen. Michael Flynn encounters military resistance in his task of overhauling U.S. intelligence-gathering in Afghanistan to boost efforts to defeat the Taliban.



> The peaks of the Hindu Kush mountains create a stunning backdrop for the U.S. military's Kabul headquarters, but Maj. Gen. Michael T. Flynn rarely notices. Sheltering Taliban fighters and American combat outposts, the mountains symbolize the old way of fighting. Flynn was sent here to help define a new strategy for the war...
> 
> Flynn's boss, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and allied commander, has ordered an overhaul of how intelligence is collected, disseminated and, most of all, used by troops in Afghanistan...
> 
> ...



More on this sort of problem from a post by BruceR. at _Flit_:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_08_24.html#006507



> ...
> 3. *Force protection measures in a warzone limit our mentoring*. Our own unwillingness to risk or lose soldiers works against us, setting at least three huge barriers in our path. It's very difficult within established force protection measures, for mentors in the South to spend continuous time with their Afghan counterparts. Our limited access to them means they're left to their own devices a lot. If you're not living and working with them at all times, that's when the corruption and incompetence will inevitably slip back in. And while we have trouble maintaining a persistent presence in their headquarters, for the same reason, *they can't enter our inner sanctums, drastically limiting the sharing of intelligence and operational planning* [emphasis added], let alone military culture...



Because of arrangements that have been made with the Pakistani government--as a result of its important place in international counterterrorism efforts--it has been, ironically, considerably easier to share intelligence with the Pakistanis than with the Afghans.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## speech (27 Nov 2009)

This is Brennan's mother here, and I have just come across your conversation regarding my son's abilities, or lack thereof, and supposed false identity.  Brennan is not a ghost writer, nor is he Brennan Sr, nor did he sit down with a member of the Associated Press!  He DID write this article for his speech at school, in fact he won the speech contest for our city! Perhaps he is a child prodigy, and I thank you gentlemen for thinking as much.  As for the immature comments about a 10 year old not being concerned about issues such as war in Afghanistan, clearly you who are speaking have a lot to learn.  Thank goodness that many of the children of today DO care enough to concern themselves with issues of this nature, and you should be proud that one of our Canadian children cares enough that he wants to speak out to the public on an issue that is dear to his heart. I would hope that you people would want children this courageous to be the children of our Canadian future.  As for the ridiculous comments about him enjoying looking on ebay for coins for his coin collection, gosh darn he's a kid!!  Can't a kid who looks for coins on ebay also have the ability to feel so strongly about an issue?!  I have raised my children to look critically at things, and think for themselves, and I am proud of what Brennan has accomplished.  And you, whoever you are, that has gone to the trouble of looking my son up on the internet to see his reading speech, don't you have BETTER things to do with your time??  Please stop this discussion on my son's speech - he's a kid, he's the author, he feels strongly about an issue, he had the courage to speak out, THE END!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Nov 2009)

..and since you let him publish an article in a newspaper and made his life [reading problem] public maybe you should look at ALL the implications of what you did. THE END!


----------



## George Wallace (27 Nov 2009)

Speech

Just out of curiousity, where exactly do you stand on "free speech"?  
1.  Do you stand on the side that allows all and sundry to comment on published articles; OR 
2.  Do you stand on the side that believes in "free speech" as long as it is in agreement with your personal thoughts?


----------



## combat_medic (27 Nov 2009)

Speech:

When you put your child's writing out in public in the media, they, and you became a public figure. Part of that involves positive press, and part of it involves negative press. If you don't want your ideas (or the ideas of your children) criticized, then they should not be made public. 

The staff here will not intervene because people disagree with a statement. That right is defended in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These people are speaking their opinions, just as your son spoke his, and they have the same freedoms to do so as your son. 

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Loachman (28 Nov 2009)

speech said:
			
		

> This is Brennan's mother here, and I have just come across your conversation regarding my son



Hello, Brennan's Mother

I remember his letter, but vaguely. Perhaps you could provide a link to the thread in question?

I searched for "Brennan", but it did not show up.

By the way, resurrecting a long-dormant series of posts is a good way of ensuring that it is _*not*_ "THE END".


----------



## George Wallace (28 Nov 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Hello, Brennan's Mother
> 
> I remember his letter, but vaguely. Perhaps you could provide a link to the thread in question?
> 
> ...



Buried deep within this large thread of merged topics is this Life as a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan  in Reply # 1182.  That is a link to Brennan's letter.


----------



## Loachman (28 Nov 2009)

Thanks, George.

Brennan's Mother: I was in Kandahar when I read Brennan's letter the first time. My thought processes mirrored some of the other posters' comments.

I cannot speak for them, but I can explain my own, which probably are not too far off of theirs.

Firstly, I appreciate your concern as a parent - I am one too - and your need to speak out. I can see your point of view quite clearly.

Were you able to see this from ours, you would perhaps better understand what was said here back then. We are not just big meanies picking on your son.

The vast majority of us thoroughly believe in what we are doing there. Despite the cost in lives and health - and this cost is very real and near to us, as these are our friends and colleagues - and personal risk to ourselves, enthusiasm still remains extremely high.

We see a lot of uninformed opinion being expressed in the media, by people who have no clue what the situation is really like and what we are accomplishing, and have obviously never been there to see it for themselves. We see it _*again*_, and _*again*_, and _*again*_, and _*again*_, and _*again*_, and we have long since tired of it. Naturally, we treat this with the scorn that it deserves.

You saw that as the initial reaction here. My reaction was the same.

We saw no difference between his letter and hundreds of others. Had his age been mentioned, that reaction may not have occurred, or would at least have been markedly different. There is a huge difference between someone of Brennan's age and the adult numpties spewing nonsense, as there has been enough good journalism that they should know better. They have no excuse for their wilful ignorance.

We would not hold a young lad to the standard that we would expect of an adult, but there was nothing in his letter to indicate his age.

The second reaction came as we realized Brennan's age. For someone so young, it was very well written (if inaccurate, factually), so perhaps you can understand some of us being a little skeptical. My boys are about the same age, and I'd be surprised (and delighted) if one of them wrote something so eloquent. In this case, you may well take the disbelief and skepticism to be a significant compliment, even if it was not so intended. Even mistaking him for an adult should be a compliment.

Having just re-read his letter, I remain impressed by his writing ability, and by his concern. I hope that you take pride in those, as you should.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Nov 2009)

Re:  rumours of talks with Taliban attributed to unnamed sources....


			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And for something completely different. This comment, reproduced under the fair comment provisions of the copyright act, is taken from:  http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2009/11/whispers-of-surrender-in-afgha/
> 
> Note that it is single source from a Saudi paper and is unconfirmed.
> 
> ...



...we now have the counterpoint:  rumours of said talks with Taliban having broken down attributed to unnamed sources, via PAK media:


> .... During the talks, the representatives of the US and the Karzai regime had their own preconditions, the most important being that the Taliban militia should accept Afghanistan’s new constitution and join the political mainstream under the existing system of governance.
> 
> The Americans also wanted the Ameer of the Afghhan Taliban Mullah Mohammad Omar to ditch Al-Qaeda and help arrest Osama bin Laden. The talks eventually failed due to the obstinacy of the Taliban representatives who wanted the withdrawal of the US-led allied forces from Afghanistan before initiating a formal dialogue with the US and the Karzai administration.



Move right along, nothing to see here....


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Nov 2009)

U.S. set to hand Canada larger role in Afghanistan 
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/hand+Canada+larger+role+Afghanistan/2279392/story.html

I don't think the story above by Matthew Fisher of Canwest News actually gives much more detail about new US forces to come under Canadian command at Kandahar than this story of his Nov. 19. 
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/hand+Canada+larger+role+Afghanistan/2279392/story.html
At the end of this _Torch_ post, noting a similar CP piece then, I speculate on who some of those American troops might be:

New Canadian commander at Kandahar/More US troops to be under his command?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-canadian-commander-at-kandaharmore.html

It would seem almost certain that a fair number of the new troops President Obama is set to announce Dec. 1 will be coming to Kandahar--in a few months. I would think most of those would be under US command but some could also be included in our task force along with whatever American forces are assigned to it in the near future.

It is significant, and unusual, that the US is willing to put significant forces under direct Canadian operational control. Remember one US army battalion already has been part of our Task Force Kandahar battle group since late last summer (barely mentioned by most of our media and largely unacknowledged by our politicians) 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/11/afstan-mnd-mackays-miserable-failure-to.html
and contributes about one-half of the task force's ground combat strength. The first such battalion, the 2-2 Ramrods, has been replaced by the 1-12 Infantry and shifted from Maywand to Zhari district.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Nov 2009)

Start of a _Torch_post:

Afstan: Big Marine component of second Obama surge 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/afstan-big-marine-component-of-second.html



> The US now has four Army ground brigades in the country with a primary combat role: the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, and 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, all in ISAF Regional Command East, plus the 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Kandahar, RC South (that last BCT was part of the first Obama surge in February this year}.
> 
> Also in RC South is the, very large, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade at Helmand (another part of the first Obama surge...).
> 
> It now looks very likely that 9,000 more Marines--a further expeditionary brigade--will be deployed to Helmand (the logical place for them) pretty soon as the first ground force element of the president's second surge to be announced Tuesday, Dec. 1...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Nov 2009)

_Torch_ post, with background:

Afstan: 500 more British troops confirmed
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/afstan-500-more-british-troops.html



> Total to be 9,500...



And from CP:

Canadians prepare for key role as NATO readies for last stand in Afghanistan
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hStbTnhs-SMMKMfxcdD7l0tGoQ8w



> KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — An ambitious push by the international community to set up an endgame in Afghanistan will hinge on its ability to break the Taliban insurgency around the country’s urban areas.
> 
> No urban area is more important than Kandahar city.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Dec 2009)

Two at _The Torch_:

Afstan: After a short absence, the CF return to Arghandab/Canadian Army general pulled out 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-after-short-absence-cf-return-to.html

What's the exit strategy for this rather sizeable NATO force...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/whats-exit-strategy-for-this-rather.html



> ...in a relatively small, overwhelmingly Muslim, country?  Perhaps the lack of combat and casualities permits the mission to drag on and on...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Dec 2009)

.... from Hansard 1 Dec 09:


> Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):  Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period, the Minister of National Defence refused to answer a very simple question. I will ask him once again.  Given that NATO announced today that Canadian soldiers will be leaving Kandahar in early 2010 and going to a neighbouring district, can the Minister of National Defence confirm that this redeployment will not change the July 2011 end date of the mission for all Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan?
> 
> Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):  Yes, I can confirm that, Mr. Speaker.


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Dec 2009)

MND MacKay might have had the wit to point out that we are not leaving Kandahar province (or city), but rather CF Task Force Kandahar is expanding its AO back to Arghandab district with a second US Army battalion to come under the task force (which has one Canadian infantry battalion).

*Predate:* But dear Peter is never one to miss an opportunity to make simple military facts clear:

Afstan: MND MacKay's miserable failure to communicate
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/11/afstan-mnd-mackays-miserable-failure-to.html

Good flipping grief, one does sometime wonder about the fellow's grasp.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Dec 2009)

At _The Torch_:

Afstan: President Obama commits 30,000 new troops, all to arrive by mid-2010 (plus some allied contributions).../Update: Ouch!
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-president-obama-commits-30000.html

BruceR. at _Flit_, well-worth the read:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_12_01.html#006592



> I've called Slate's Fred Kaplan "hysterical" before this. So this doesn't come as much of a surprise. Discussing the worst case in Afghanistan:
> 
> As with confronting most messes in life, the initial impulse is to flee. But if we simply pulled out, it's a near-certain bet that the Taliban would march into Kabul, and most other Afghan towns they'd care to, in a matter of weeks.
> 
> I don't know anyone who really believes that. A lot of people think the place would return to a state of civil war in a matter of weeks or not days. I've previously said the army would rapidly revert to its Northern Alliance roots and the ANP in places it was unpopular would likely dissolve. But it'd take a while until the Taliban were back in Kabul in any scenario...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Dec 2009)

At _The Torch_:

The new US Army battalion under Canadian command: The Torch got it right 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-us-army-battalion-under-canadian.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman (3 Dec 2009)

In this blog....





			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Afstan: President Obama commits 30,000 new troops, all to arrive by mid-2010 (plus some allied contributions).../Update: Ouch!
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-president-obama-commits-30000.html


...there's a link to another discussion (which I've stolen to post here  ;D )
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/12/obamas-speech-at-west-point-about.html

I agree with the comment that it is a very interesting read, notwithstanding the emphasis on "waiting for the winter while the Taliban are huddled in their caves"  :

Of note, and which I glossed over in my initial watching of the speech and subsequent transcript reading:





> *Where Al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
> This is interesting. Have many thoughts, but will wait a bit before discussing.*


This will be a growing theme in US policy. 

At a recent meeting in the US, a representative of the National Counter-terrorism Center stated that it's been directed that "eastern Africa is important, and Darfur is too difficult, so we're looking at Somalia."

The bells that went off for a few of us (way too few) were:
- "directed," not "assessed" - it's politics driving intelligence;
- "does the NCTC know where Darfur is?" -- it's not exactly 'east' within Africa
- "Somalia is an '_easy_' target??"

So buckle your seatbelts kids...


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Dec 2009)

More:

Afstan: Gates groks the importance of the second surge...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-gates-groks-importance-of-second.html



> ...and the perils of evacuating prematurely. From the text of his testimony...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman (3 Dec 2009)

> ...and the perils of evacuating prematurely.


 Premature evacuation is _so_ embarrassing.....er, so I've read   :-[


(_Someone_ had to say it  ;D )


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Dec 2009)

Plus:

Afstan and allies: 1,000 more Italians, Turks won't fight (pity) 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-and-allies-1000-more-italians.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Dec 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Premature evacuation is _so_ embarrassing.....er, so I've read   :-[


Oh, trust me....I've read as well!


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Dec 2009)

A way to make a success of President Obama's strategy--"Vietnamization" that works thinks BruceR. at _Flit_:

TLSR
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_12_04.html#006594



> Kevin Drum asks "what's the plan?" in Afghanistan. I don't feel the same disconnect. I thought Obama, when read with Gen. McChrystal's previous staff work, doesn't leave much in the way of ambiguity, actually.
> 
> The key date is July 2011, and the deliverable the "beginning of the transfer of security responsibilities to Afghan forces. Not winning the war, or fixing the country, or something else equally ephemeral.
> 
> It's always been a key deliverable, long before the President's speech. During my tour, the phrase was "Transfer of Lead Security Responsibility," or TLSR. The question was always how far away it really was: it was always a real moving target of a deadline...



For more on "Vietnamization" see the end of this _Torch_ post:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-way-to-make-success-of-president.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Dec 2009)

Conference of Defence Associations' media round-up:

Debating the Obama Strategy
http://www.cdaforumcad.ca/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1259959119

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Dec 2009)

From Canada's ROCK, Ben Rowswell:


> “The [Provincial Reconstruction Team] is part of the international presence and there has been no discussion of the international presence coming to an end in 2011.”



From an anonymous “senior Canadian government official”:


> “I couldn’t say firmly that we’re going to do training post-2011 …. There’s part of the training that can be in combat. There’s part of the training that’s not in combat.”



 :

More bitching and whining about lack of message clarity/continuity here.


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Dec 2009)

Gen. Petraeus in action (with video and transcript):

 The key to Obama's Afghan second surge: In faster, maybe...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/key-to-obamas-second-surge-in-faster.html



> ...out sooner (see Uppestdate here). Or pushing to curve to the left. From a major NY Times story on the president's decision-making process...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Dec 2009)

Further confirmation of the "we're still working out next steps" message thread, this time from Michèle Flournoy, U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy via this Reuters story (with a hat tip to Bruce at Flit for first spotting the tidbit elsewhere) - emphasis mine:


> .... The new deployments will be partly offset by planned withdrawals by allies, with the Netherlands and Canada planning to pull out their combat forces of 2,100 and 2,800 troops in 2010 and 2011, respectively.
> 
> Flournoy said *discussions were underway about the future roles of Canada and the Netherlands in the country. She did not rule out a future military role but appeared to suggest other options were also under discussion.
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Dec 2009)

Meanwhile, _Torch_ post with lots of further links:

Afstan: First units of US second surge announced, mostly Marines
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-first-units-of-us-second-surge.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Dec 2009)

A post from Terry Glavin, now at KAF:

Clear, Hold, Build: The End Of The Beginning In Afghanistan. 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/12/clear-hold-build-end-of-beginning-in.html

And a response at _The Torch_:

TG reporting from the Sandbox--plus "a weird strip-tease" and more types of dancing 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/tg-reporting-from-sandbox-plus-weird.html

Plus BruceR. at _Flit_ for context:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Dec 2009)

Video with BruceR.:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/24374?in=00:00&out=60:41

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2009)

Jerry Pournelle:

http://jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q4/view599.html#Saturday



> *The Truth about Afghanistan, and its meaning for US policy*
> 
> The obvious truth about Afghanistan is that there are two conditions for an American victory, assuming victory means building a democratic republic in the territory we call Afghanistan. One has to do with the number of troops. The other is the length of the commitment: how long will we stay?
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Dec 2009)

Thucydides: Worth seriously worrying about, I fear.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## leroi (8 Dec 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> A post from Terry Glavin, now at KAF:
> 
> Clear, Hold, Build: The End Of The Beginning In Afghanistan.
> http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/12/clear-hold-build-end-of-beginning-in.html
> ...



Mark, _this_ below by Glavin that you also express:

_But our "combat role," whatever that might mean, is supposed to come to an end by 2011, and it's still unclear just what Canada's military and civilian contribution in Kandahar is going to be after that. *This is inexcusable.* What Canada does next in Afghanistan should be the subject of an open, vigorous debate among Canadian parliamentarians, and especially among ordinary Canadians. Nothing of the kind is happening. Nobody knows what's going on. _

~It's "inexcusable" and heartbreaking and must be so frustrating for our CF members risking life and limb and not knowing what the future holds. 
And then there are those children in Afghanistan whose hopes of a better life through education have been raised--only to be dashed?


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Dec 2009)

The Netherlands and Afstan--the Dutch debate here
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/press-review-7-december-2009
--a lot more open, and no more confusing, than our government's dithering dance: 



> ...
> 
> *US wants continued Dutch presence in Afghanistan*
> De Volkskrant reports that the US ambassador to NATO is putting pressure on the Dutch government to stay in Uruzgan province at least until July 2011. On the current affairs programme Buitenhof Ambassador Ivo Daalders said that if the Netherlands wanted to be among the first countries to withdraw from Afghanistan in July 2011, “We could talk about that”, but until that time, “the Netherlands must finish its job in Uruzgan province”.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Dec 2009)

Some smoke and mirrors in ISAF surge:

Many surge troops 'already in Afghanistan'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6948269.ece



> More than 1,500 of the extra troops pledged by Nato allies yesterday to back up the US surge of 30,000 additional soldiers for Afghanistan are already in the country and have been counted before, it emerged yesterday.
> 
> They include 700 soldiers sent by Britain to boost security for the period leading up to and beyond the August 20 presidential election. Gordon Brown announced on October 14 that the 700, sent initially for four months, would stay as a permanent additional force.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Dec 2009)

US building pressure on Paks:

Pakistan Told to Ratchet Up Fight Against the Taliban 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/world/asia/08policy.html?ref=todayspaper



> The Obama administration is turning up the pressure on Pakistan to fight the Taliban inside its borders, warning that if it does not act more aggressively the United States will use considerably more force on the Pakistani side of the border to shut down Taliban attacks on American forces in Afghanistan, American and Pakistani officials said.
> 
> The blunt message was delivered in a tense encounter in Pakistan last month, before President Obama announced his new war strategy, when Gen. James L. Jones, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, and John O. Brennan, the White House counterterrorism chief, met with the heads of Pakistan’s military and its intelligence service.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Dec 2009)

These tidbits from the National Post & Reuters, quoting the CDS's tesimony to a parliamentary committee:


> "For the Canadian Forces to meet the direction of the government to be out of Kandahar by December 2011, we must begin our planning now .... It is the end of the presence of Canadian Forces in Kandahar province and it is the end of the military mission throughout Afghanistan ....  If PRT remain it will still be a team of civilian officials."


----------



## Journeyman (8 Dec 2009)

> ....considering expanding drone strikes in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas [i.e. *Quetta area*], but General Jones’s comments....


Geographic nit-picking, but Quetta is well south of the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas. When discussing the potential to allow CIA missile strikes into Baluchistan, that would be expanding drone strikes _beyond_ the tribal areas, rather than _in_ the tribal areas.

Nit-picking aside, I don't believe the Pakistan government has the stability (or possibly the will) to contain the inevitable sovereigntist uproar that would accompany the blatant American use of force beyond the tribal areas. And the protests wouldn't have to be Islamists, just pissed-off Pakistani nationalists.

Gutsy move.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Dec 2009)

Journeyman: Quite right, not a nit-pick, wasn't on top of the thing.  Quetta of course capital of Baluchistan and home of the Pak Army Staff College
http://www.cscquetta.com/
 (which Canadian officers used to attend, under the Paks and before them the Brits).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman (8 Dec 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> ...home of the Pak Army Staff College (which Canadian officers used to attend....


Still do. We still rotate a Maj through there, in exchange for one Pakistani attending CFC Toronto.....


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Dec 2009)

Good to know!

Mark


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Dec 2009)

Found this interesting......


> .... The Chief of the Defence Staff was unequivocal about the withdrawal of some 2,800 Canadian Forces members while testifying Tuesday at the House of Commons defence committee, where MPs repeatedly pressed him to clarify what they regard as vague government messages on how many non-combat troops will be left behind and what role they will play.
> 
> Natynczyk’s answer in short was: None, “except perhaps for people who work in the embassy.” Later he specified an attaché may be the only one left in the country.
> 
> ...



.... in light of pretty big work being done here and here - just in time to leave, apparently - more from the _Ottawa Citizen_ (highlights mine):


> .... Meanwhile, *Defence Minister Peter MacKay said in a written statement tabled in the Commons that his department “has not developed any contingencies for the extension of the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan beyond 2011.”* The statement was in a written answer to questions from Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh about planning for a possible extension ....



I guess DND hasn't been talking to PMO?


> .... (PM's spokesperson Dimitri) Soudas said the government would shift focus from combat operations and in-the-field training of Afghan police and soldiers to a development and reconstruction mission.
> 
> The military’s training mission will continue, but it will take place in the safety of protected facilities, he said....



WTF?  At the risk of sounding cliche, don't the troops deserve better than this "he says, she says"?  Or am I being naive?


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2009)

More on Pakistan's double game. The Saudis are allegedly involved too (perhaps hoping to surround Iran with Wahhabi influenced theocracies):

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjIxZTRhYmI4ZjA5YzIwZjc4MTlkMTUyMGVjYmQxN2E=



> *Our Friends, the Pakistanis*
> [Andy McCarthy]
> 
> IBD has an explosive editorial this morning. It alleges that we are being double-crossed — and the killing of our troops in Afghanistan is being abetted — by the Pakistani intelligence service (the ISI), which is harboring Mullah Omar and other Taliban notables. The Taliban, moreover, continues to be bank-rolled by the Saudis.
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Dec 2009)

We better confirm that with Scott Taylor and Sunil Ram. And Steven Staples.....the Three Stooges.


----------



## FDO (10 Dec 2009)

:rofl: I love it!! Very aptly put.  Somebody buy Big "S" a beverage of his choice!!


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Dec 2009)

Perhaps we asked for these aircraft in 2006, but due to our procurement process we're just going to be getting them in 2011.


----------



## Greymatters (10 Dec 2009)

But does a delivery date of Jun 2011 include operational testing and aircrew training?  If it doesnt, the actual date of deployment could be pushed back a bit...


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Dec 2009)

"Usual suspect" expertise notwithstanding, *IF* it comes down to zero troops left outside the Embassy in Kabul by the end of 2011, and *IF* "King Air/Huron ISTAR Planes with Civvy Contractor Crews" is the direction Canada takes (and as Greymatters points out, *IF* it can be done in time), I'd be more than OK with that as Canadian contribution helping hunt down bad guys and IEDs.  Hell, more of the same *IF* that's the way it goes.

It obviously wouldn't give Canada the same clout as tan boots on the ground, but we're not hearing much from elected Ottawa on _that_ option continuing these days, are we?


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Dec 2009)

Bunch of stuff at _The Torch_:

On detainees...yet again...all the time (Damian Brooks, excellent)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-detaineesyet-againall-time.html

Afghan detainees: "Scandalous"/Update: Anyone remember there's a war on? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afghan-detainees-scandalous.html

Afghan detainees: Surely the Liberals showed contempt for international 
law... 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afghan-detainees-surely-liberals-showed.html

Afstan: Terry Glavin on the radio (about his recent visit)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-terry-glavin-on-radio.html

2009 Canadian Blog Awards/Upperdate: More Torch
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/2009-canadian-blog-awards-upperdatemore.html



> Have just learned The Torch is also listed under at the awards website
> http://cdnba.wordpress.com/vote-2009/
> under "Professional Life". One can vote here, fairly frequently.
> http://demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=cba09r1pro
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Dec 2009)

Afstan: "Can we resist the pressure to stay?" 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-can-we-resist-pressure-to-stay.html



> Good piece by Brian Stewart at the CBC. Excerpts...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Dec 2009)

I agree. There are far too many "experts" who constantly confuse not only the public, but our troops. Scotty and Sunil are but two of them.

These "experts" appear to be the "theoretical" types. They have no clue what goes on out beyond the wire.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Dec 2009)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Things are bad-enough without so-called 'experts" confusing the issue. We have the PM saying all stuff military ends in 2011, then our head diplomat in Kabul says that a PRT (300 soldiers) will be staying on afterwards and working with the U.S.


And we have American officials saying "we're still discussing what happens next with Canada and the Netherlands... +1000 on the lack of coherence of messaging on next steps.



			
				Big Silverback said:
			
		

> These "experts" appear to be the "theoretical" types. They have no clue what goes on out beyond the wire.


Then why not look look beyond the "knucklehead" factor at the core idea:
Canada is paying an American company to modify planes that COULD be used, even flown/operated by civvies, to help detect bad guys and IEDs.  If Canada really does pull every Canadian soldier out of AFG by the end of 2011, would this be a good alternative contribution?

We accuse the media of going for the sizzle instead of the meat, so I'm thinking we can do better than them and focus the idea, not the messengers.


----------



## HItorMiss (11 Dec 2009)

Because these aircraft have no scope of use outside Afghanistan....  :

These planes will be critical assets to those people how use SIGINT to target bad guys in any theater of operations not just the current AO.

Defence experts my left butt cheek!


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Dec 2009)

AfPak and US air power/Update: Scratch one senior AQ
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afpakand-us-air-power.html



> Two amazingly detailed stories from _Wired News_ (nothing like this would ever come through the CF--perhaps a good thing in cases such as these...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## speech (11 Dec 2009)

Thanks, Loachman, I certainly appreciate your kind words and understanding.

First, I thank you for being one of the brave to serve our country in Kandahar.  We are so blessed to have individuals such as yourself who are called to do what you do, and I don't know what our country would do if we didn't have people such as yourself (and my brother).  I agree, the general public has no idea of what goes on over there, nor are we truly able to form an opinion because we have nothing to base it on.

My son was simply expressing HIS thoughts, and my beef was around the fact that people on here were calling him a liar.  I guess I should take your advice and consider these comments a compliment, since he clearly is a very talented writer.  

Thanks again.


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Dec 2009)

Afstan: The Canadian journalism sucks challenge of the day/ "America's war", ISAF URL fun 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-canadian-journalism-sucks.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Jammer (13 Dec 2009)

I would suggest the speculation on what sensors might be installed in the A/C be kept out of this discussion for the sake of OPSEC.


----------



## HItorMiss (13 Dec 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> I would suggest the speculation on what sensors might be installed in the A/C be kept out of this discussion for the sake of OPSEC.



Huh?


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Dec 2009)

Our media certainly aren't helping any informed "Afghanistan Debate":

"Canada in Afstan: All the News That's Fit... 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/canada-in-afstan-all-news-thats-fit.html



> ...to Ignore almost completely by our media...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Dec 2009)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Huh?


I can't speak for Jammer, but I agree that we shouldn't talk in detail what hardware might be in the planes -  maybe stick more to the concept of the utility (or uselessness) of a light SIGINT plane in Canada's arsenal.


----------



## HItorMiss (13 Dec 2009)

I am going to assume the post about OPSEC and capabilites is some what aimed at me.

To which I will say EVERY one uses SIGINT to target those people who need targeting, No one here has talked about what specific items would or will be on these planes nor how they do what it is they do.

As a precaution though I agree those who know what types of equipment could be used and how it is used should know better then to talk specifics about it. In fact I would be shocked to see someone so sloppy as to get into specifics.

IMO of course


----------



## Loachman (13 Dec 2009)

speech said:
			
		

> Thanks, Loachman, I certainly appreciate your kind words and understanding.



You're welcome.



			
				speech said:
			
		

> First, I thank you for being one of the brave to serve our country in Kandahar.  We are so blessed to have individuals such as yourself who are called to do what you do, and I don't know what our country would do if we didn't have people such as yourself (and my brother).



I don't think of myself as particularly brave, and I don't feel like much of a blessing. I do appreciate being paid to do something that I like, though.


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Dec 2009)

Afstan: CF like the fish in the sea (with three US battalions for company) 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-like-fish-in-sea-with-three-us.html

Afstan: It's complicated for the CF to say goodbye--as the government's dance continues 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-its-complicated-for-cf-to-say.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters (16 Dec 2009)

Apparently having any sort of PoliSci degree immediately qualifies you as an expert - and they dont like to be confused and their theories disproven by soldiers with actual experience...


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Dec 2009)

The second US Army Brigade Combat Team coming to Kandahar/COIN priority over CT 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/us-army-brigade-combat-team-coming-to.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Retired AF Guy (16 Dec 2009)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Apparently having any sort of PoliSci degree immediately qualifies you as an expert - and they dont like to be confused and their theories disproven by soldiers with actual experience...



And this is aimed at who?


----------



## sm1lodon (16 Dec 2009)

So it looks like unless we go into Pakistan and kill every last Taliban in existence there, plus win the support of the people there, Afghanistan will possibly meet with little long-term success?

So, in effect, Pakistan is to Afghanistan what Cambodia was to Vietnam. A supply depot and route and hiding place for the enemy.

That didn't work in the Vietnam war. I don't think it will work for us this time, either.

I am not arguing for or against what the politicos are trying to accomplish in that part of the world. Just noting that having a supply cache/factory and distribution route/infrastructure right beside the country you are attacking has been proven to be counterproductive to winning the fight.


----------



## Greymatters (18 Dec 2009)

Hmmm... too broad of a statement - I am thinking of those in an academic position with no military or other government agency experience.


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Dec 2009)

The unit taking the most fatalities at Kandahar is American 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/unit-taking-most-fatalities-at-kandahar.html

Terry Glavin on Richard Colvin/ Bureaucracy at Ft. Pearson 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/terry-glavin-on-richard-colvin.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Dec 2009)

Afstan: Karzai's proposed new cabinet drops key minister/Buying locally
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-karzais-proposed-new-cabinet.html



> All the Western reporting I've seen, such as this Wall St. Journal story, misses one very important thing. Mohammed Ehsan Zia, Minister of Rural Rehabilitation and Development (MRRD), has been dropped...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2009)

Looking at Richard Colvin's assertations:

http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/12/closer-look-at-richard-colvins-claims.html



> Chronicles & Dissent
> Thursday, December 17, 2009
> 
> A closer look at Richard Colvin's claims about the lies of his lying bosses and their lies
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Dec 2009)

Afstan: Is NATO fighting a war or not? Russian help/US supply routes 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-is-nato-fighting-war-or-not.html



> I guess it all depends on where one is. NATO's Secretary General does some Olympic skating towards the end of this interview with _Spiegel Online_ (note that the interviewer does not bother to ask about the planned Canadian and Dutch withdrawals)...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Dec 2009)

Afstan: Helmarineshire/Initiative not necessarily with ISAF 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-helmarineshireinitiative-not.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Dec 2009)

Germany's evolving Afghan mission--and maybe a real scandal
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/germanys-evolving-afghan-mission-and.html



> Further to this post,
> 
> Afstan: Bad times for the German mission
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/afstan-bad-times-for-german-mission.html
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Dec 2009)

With Pathans 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/with-pathans_22.html



> A Canadian writer, Matthieu Aikins, now in New York City, has written a marvelous article about his spending time earlier this year with Pathans in Quetta and then just across the Durand Line in Spin Boldak. Also with time in Kandahar and Kabul. The article is in the December 2009 issue of _Harper's_ magazine. I urge you most strongly to buy it...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Dec 2009)

BruceR.:

Rough times in the Arghandab
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_12_23.html

_Torch_:

Afstan: Typical Canadian reporting--balderflippingdash 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-typical-canadian-reporting.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Dec 2009)

Afstan: Only two more rotos to go/Scoop *Update* 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-only-two-more-rotos-to-go.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Dec 2009)

Matthew Fisher interviewed about Afstan--our best war correspondent, now working from Kandahar for Canwest News, on CFRA, Ottawa:
http://www.cfra.com/interviews/default.asp



> Monday, December 28, 2009
> The Year in War
> Madely in the Morning - 8:10am --- Rob Snow is joined by Matthew Fisher, CanWest Foreign correspondent, Middle East and South Asia bureau chief, to discuss the Afghanistan war and the future of the mission.
> mp3 (click here to download)



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Dec 2009)

Afstan: Terry Glavin interviewed by Rex Murphy--"reporters embedded at the D'Arcy McGee's pub in Ottawa"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-terry-glavin-interviewed-by-rex.html



> On CBC Radio's _Cross Country Checkup_...
> 
> This interview with Canwest News' Matthew Fisher a month later might well be listened to as a follow-up.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Dec 2009)

Something our major media consistently ignore:

US Army 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Maywand district, Kandahar 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/us-army-5th-stryker-brigade-combat-team.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Jan 2010)

The odd view of our media about their sources--Christie Blatchford of the _Globe and Mail_ reflects following the killing of reporter Michelle Lang:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/Somnia/article1416378/



> ...
> The Canadian Forces are not slick manipulators of truth – rather the opposite, I say politely – and the mere fact of its embedding program, where reporters are invited to live and work alongside soldiers and are subject in my experience to almost zero interference or censorship, alone should speak to that.
> 
> And the Taliban, however simple or uneducated its lowest-ranking members may be, are adept at the most basic propaganda; they know very well that the shortest route to sap the will of countries like Canada and Britain is a rising casualty toll. Canadian soldiers who speak to the press are named and accountable for their remarks, both to their superiors and to the public; but for a few top leaders, Taliban and supporters are interviewed anonymously, through interpreters and sometimes fixers, and are usually photographed with covered faces.
> ...



A _Torch_ post along similar lines from this August, with further links:

Dr Goebbels on the line
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/08/dr-goebbels-on-line.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Jan 2010)

....maybe not all that much longer (note yellow highlight) - this, from the _Ottawa Citizen_:


> The Canadian military hopes to have new surveillance aircraft operating out of Kandahar by the summer to help hunt down insurgents planting improvised explosive devices.
> 
> The aircraft will be flown by private contractors but the Defence Department is declining, for reasons of national security, to name what firm it has hired for the job.
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Jan 2010)

Afstan: Typical Canadian reporting--balderflippingdash, Part 2 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/afstan-typical-canadian-reporting.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Jan 2010)

AfPak--two from Terry Glavin:

Farhat Taj: "They would welcome anyone, Americans, Israelis, Indians or even the devil." (UAVS, a Pakistani view)
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/01/farhat-taj-they-would-welcome-anyone.html

Killing The Hostages. (murdering Muslims, a, er, body count)
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/01/killing-hostages.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 Jan 2010)

In related news, the  first USAF MC-12  has arrived at Bagram AFB in Afghanistan. This will be the first aircraft that will form the new 4th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron. They are a little coy about aircraft numbers, but  here is a official Dept. of Defence report  from 11 Jun '09 about Defense Secretary Gates visiting the L3 Communications plant where the aircraft are built. The report contains these little snippets about _*"...[Gates] observing work under way on four additional MC-12s today, all bound for Afghanistan..."*_ and "_*Another 24 MC-12s currently contracted for are bound for Afghanistan." *_ So, it looks like the 4th ESR will consist of around 28 aircraft, if the second report is correct.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Jan 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Hmmm... too broad of a statement - I am thinking of those in an academic position with no military or other government agency experience.


I guess that's the problem with broad statements...and continuing to make them. 

Napoleon was accompanied by his baggage mule on _every_ campaign; Pte Numpty has an Afghan Campaign Star for his gruelling six-months' making coffee in the TOC; both therefore have "military experience."

I guess you'd turn to either of those "experts," before reading something produced by an academic who may have spent most of his adult life _merely_ studying conflicts.


Darn those generalizations. Simply having worn a uniform does not necessarily make one's opinions informed, or experiences relevant, to all things military.


----------



## REDinstaller (3 Jan 2010)

Must give them more eyes in the eastern provinces then.


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Jan 2010)

Afstan: Interview with Commander, ISAF Joint Command, U.S. Army Lt. Gen. David M. Rodriguez 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/afstan-interview-with-commander-isaf.html

Afstan: Mujahedin militias to the, er, rescue at Kunduz 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/afstan-mujahedin-militias-to-er-rescue.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Jan 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Pte Numpty has an Afghan Campaign Star for his gruelling six-months' making coffee in the TOC


*ahem*.  That's "CAPTAIN" Numpty, my good fellow!  I didn't spend a bazillion years at this rank just to be called "Pte" ;D

Oh, and I was there for SEVEN gruelling months   >


----------



## REDinstaller (3 Jan 2010)

Thats alot of ice caps going down range in that time. lol


----------



## PanaEng (3 Jan 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I guess that's the problem with broad statements...and continuing to make them.
> 
> Napoleon was accompanied by his baggage mule on _every_ campaign; Pte Numpty has an Afghan Campaign Star for his gruelling six-months' making coffee in the TOC; both therefore have "military experience."
> 
> ...



Darned good point!
I may quote you in other threads  

cheers
Frank


----------



## observor 69 (3 Jan 2010)

I already do.  ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Jan 2010)

Letter in the _Globe and Mail_, rather edited to take out the sting, see original below:

A bigger Afghan presence
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/a-bigger-afghan-presence/article1417797/



> Mark Collins
> Ottawa
> 
> The article Canada's Kandahar Legacy Rests On A Shift In Strategy, But Is There Enough Time? (front page, Jan. 2)
> ...



The original (and note the final para, omitted by the Globe):



> Kandahar military realities‏
> 
> The Globe ran this major front page piece Jan. 2, "Canada's Kandahar legacy rests on a shift in strategy", which amongst other things considers how the security situation might develop in the province.  But the article fails to mention either the presence in the province since the summer of 2009 of the US Army's 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, or the fact that a second US Army brigade combat team will be coming to Kandahar this spring.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman (4 Jan 2010)

Aww....with my shyness and inferiority complex, you guys are making me blush.  :-[


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Jan 2010)

Terry Glavin:

A Letter Of Grief And Hope From Kandahar: "Their Spirit Will Live On Forever."
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/01/letter-of-grief-and-hope-from-kandahar.html



> What follows is a letter from our dear friend Ehsanullah Ehsan, director of the Afghan-Canadian Community Centre in Kandahar,
> http://www.canilf.org/projects/afghan-school-project/
> "a school that owes its existence to the sacrifices of the Canadian people." I've passed on the letter directly to Canadian Forces officials in Ottawa and to the editor of the Calgary Herald, so that it might make its way to the bereaved families...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Jan 2010)

Afstan: Reforming inadequate US intelligence 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/afstan-reforming-poor-us-intelligence.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jan 2010)

This, from CanWest:


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper says virtually all Canadian soldiers will leave Afghanistan by the end of 2011, making some of his most definitive statements yet on his vision of Canada’s future role there in an interview Wednesday with Canwest News Service.
> 
> (....)
> 
> ...



_- edited to add link to story -_


----------



## George Wallace (7 Jan 2010)

That is simply amazing.  It never fails to amaze me as to how naive Canadians really are.  

How many 'Humanitarian workers' will we see come home in boxes?


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Jan 2010)

So the prime minister finally is as definitive as one can be--and all without any formal consideration in Parliament of the nature of the future Canadian effort in Afghanistan, contrary to what the government seemed to be saying in October 2009.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/post-2011-mission-heading-back-to-house.html

One wonders if our decision will have any impact on the debate in the Netherlands about whether to extend their military mission beyond 2010, when it is scheduled to end.
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-uruzgan-duty-stay

Now when will our media report that the tours of our current battle group roto and its successor (now to be the last such combat battle group) have been, very quietly, extended?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-only-two-more-rotos-to-go.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Loachman (7 Jan 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> How many 'Humanitarian workers' will we see come home in boxes?



Not very many. Most of their bodies will never be found.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jan 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> One wonders if our decision will have any impact on the debate in the Netherlands about whether to extend their military mission beyond 2010, when it is scheduled to end.
> http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/dutch-uruzgan-duty-stay



<Dutch mission tangent>

On this.....

1)  As of yesterday, NLD's cabinet was reportedly undecided on its presence in Uruzgan (although it appears, from this report, that they'll keep their jets in K'Har).

1)  The Civil Leader of Task Force Uruzgan/Director of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Uruzgan is already talking about this roto being the "last-but-one" as well:


> Right from the very start, General Van Uhm and I were asked what the main element would be of our deployment as respective military commander and civil representative of the Task Force Uruzgan (TFU) number VII. We knew that our mission would last until February 2010 and that after that - on the basis of political decisions taken in 2007 - there would be one more task force, in the same form, due to operate until 1 August 2010. So, our wasn't simply TFU-VII, but in fact more TFU 'last-but-one' ....



</Dutch mission tangent>


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Jan 2010)

Germans are also coming to a crunch:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,670710,00.html



> The US clearly expects Germany to increase the number of troops it has stationed in Afghanistan. But Chancellor Merkel's government is a long way from agreement on the issue. With an Afghanistan conference looming in London, however, Berlin is running out of time.
> 
> There are a number of ambiguities ahead of the Afghanistan Conference, set to take place in London at the end of the month. Perhaps the most curious, however, is the guest list. Indeed, it isn't even yet clear who will be representing Germany at the Jan. 28 summit...
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Jan 2010)

ISAF operations: Helmand is beginning to seem quite similar to Kandahar/White House politics 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/isaf-operations-helmand-is-beginning-to.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jan 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site is a comment from Prof. (and retired Army (RCAC) LCol) Doug Bland:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/afghanistan-after-2011-then-what/article1422843/


> Afghanistan: After 2011, then what?
> *We should at least be discussing the risks and consequences of a Canadian departure*
> 
> Douglas Bland
> ...



These are good questions. My answers, worth what you are paying for them, are:

•	*Canada-U.S. relations*: There will be few, if any impacts. The Obama administration will be following us out. We are, actually, helping them by pulling the first, maybe second (after Netherlands) brick out of the wall.

•	*Canada-NATO relations*: No, not much. We are, nearly, irrelevant now.

•	*The Taliban and other foes*: Yes.

•	*The Canadian Forces*: The Canadian governments is more than happy to _sacrifice_ Afghanistan for the sake of our deficit. The rebuilding of the CF *may* remain a priority – within fiscal realities.

•	*Canada and the UN*: Sorry, I can’t restrain the laughter. Moving along, now …

•	*Canada's place at the table*: No, but we would have precious little if we stayed.


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Jan 2010)

US intelligence and Afstan--and friends 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-intelligence-and-afstan-and-friends.html

ABC World News from Kabul Jan. 11 and 12 9 (note the poll of Afghans) 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/abc-world-news-from-kabul-jan-11-and-12.html

Afstan: Key previous minister still missing in second cabinet proposed by President Karzai 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/afstan-key-minister-still-missing-in.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PolSciPof (11 Jan 2010)

There are legitimate reasons why we are in Afghanistan. The Afghan sovereign law-making body gave legitimacy through legislation. Aside from the fact that any crime committed by any American or Canadian in Afghan soil is under their court's  jurisdiction and covered by Afghan criminal laws, they cannot also escape the long arm's reach of Canadian military tribunals. Moreover, we are promoting democracy. We also have the blessings of the Canadian electorate who elected the majority of those who passed the laws legitimizing our presence in Afghanistan.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Jan 2010)

From Terry Glavin, recently returned from the Sandbox:
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-follows-is-preview-of-my-essay-in.html



> ...
> _KANDAHAR AIRFIELD –It might help to imagine this place as something out of a science-fiction movie, set in the distant future, on a desolate, searing-hot and faraway planet. More than 30,000 earthlings from 42 different countries are hunkered down in a vast and heavily-guarded mining colony in the middle of a windswept plain. Groaning, lumbering vehicles rumble around dusty streets. Strange pilotless aircraft circle overhead..._
> 
> I'm headed back to Afghanistan within the month. I won't be inside KAF, but instead, like the time before,
> ...



Also from the time before:

Riding With Mad Max Across The Kandahar Plain, To Visit With Ehsan Ullah Ehsan 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/11/riding-with-mad-max-across-kandahar.html

More on that good Afghan and the CF here:
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/01/letter-of-grief-and-hope-from-kandahar.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Jan 2010)

Afstan: Bye bye ISAF Regional Command South as US takes control 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/afstan-bye-bye-isaf-regional-command.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Jan 2010)

Afstan: Jan. 28 international conference/ANA, ANP training 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/afstan-jan-29-international.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman (15 Jan 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Afstan: Bye bye ISAF Regional Command South as US takes control
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/afstan-bye-bye-isaf-regional-command.html



From this link, above:





> The command — which switches annually between Britain, the Netherlands and Canada with a permanent American deputy commander — will be replaced by two division sized commands [emphasis added] of about 30,000 servicemen each


I can't imagine something as straight-forward as merely being abolished will be capable of shrinking the bloated sinecure for staff-officers that is RC(S). I bet they bumble along for another year or so, making powerpoints, before they realize they have no command. [/cynicism]



> “The US Marines hardly take orders from the US Army, let alone a British command structure,” one source told The Times.


 :rofl:


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Jan 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I can't imagine something as straight-forward as merely being abolished will be capable of shrinking the bloated sinecure for staff-officers that is RC(S). I bet they bumble along for another year or so, making powerpoints, before they realize they have no command.


I predict that RC (S) will in fact BLOAT LARGER.  I mean, they will need Staff Officers to work out what they will do when command shifts, which requires J4-5-7's, J5-1-7s and lord knows what else.  Oh, and a PowerPoint brigade!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (17 Jan 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I predict that RC (S) will in fact BLOAT LARGER.  I mean, they will need Staff Officers to work out what they will do when command shifts, which requires J4-5-7's, J5-1-7s and lord knows what else.  Oh, and a PowerPoint brigade!



Is that where you got your PowerPoint Ranger qual?   ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Jan 2010)

Terry Glavin takes on our craven political class:

'The question will be, for how long do you want to be paying the Taliban with your money?'
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-long-do-you-want-to-be-paying.html



> An "odd guard guarding an embassy"
> http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2414456&p=1
> is all that will be left of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan next year. Thus Prime Minister Stephen Harper has declared, unchallenged, and as though it were only up to him to decide in the first place. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff pledges to support only a "different role focusing on a humanitarian commitment," indicating such open-mindedness as to risk having his brains fall out, and the New Democrats haven't made a contribution to the discussion since their 2006 edict declaring that Canada should simply refuse the United Nations' entreaties altogether because Afghanistan is just "not the right mission for Canada."
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Jan 2010)

Canadian and US armies going to the people in Kandahar City and environs--with a price 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/canadian-and-us-armies-going-to-people.html



> A story in _Stars and Stripes_ noting the armies' cooperation (something our media rarely mention, the American troops mentioned are under CF command)...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## leroi (19 Jan 2010)

Controversial Canadian, Conrad Black, weighs in on Canada's commitment to Afghanistan and why we should stay--I  like what he has to say ... and my own opinion on the mission boils down to some thing simple my mother taught me: "If you're going to do something do it right to and see it through to the end or don't do anything at all;  my Dad's advice would be the same but expressed more tersely as "shit or get off the pot."

Having said that, my resolve weakens (guiltily) when I stare into the eyes of another photo of Fallen Comrade(s) and hear stories of our wounded coming home.  With each and every ramp ceremony I ask myself is it worth it? Yet, it's my belief that this is exactly how the enemy wants us to feel--so Canadians will put pressure on the government  to withdraw and  insurgents will succeed with their evil fatwas;  continuing to grow, spread and  propagate terrorism;  inspiring an irrational hatred of the west and continue oppressing others and violating basic Human Rights--WITH VIOLENCE.  

Conrad Black: Sticking Around in Afghanistan

The National Post: January 16, 2010

(Reproduced in accordance with the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.)

Link

After Barack Obama made his recent policy statement about the war in Afghanistan, I wrote here that the combination of the U.S. build-up, confirmation of war aims, and the major offensive by Pakistan, after years of shilly-shallying by that country, would produce an important victory over the region’s terrorists. Unfortunately, the current position of the Harper government is not so praiseworthy as Mr. Obama’s. “We’ve done enough” is not an acceptable, or even honourable, revised mission statement at this stage in a just war that has both NATO and UN legitimization.  

The Bush-Rumsfeld approach to waging war generally ignored foreign assistance, except for the British and Australians in Iraq. The Bush White House was concerned that any effort to build NATO solidarity would restrain the scope and force of the U.S. war on terror. There was some basis to the concern. But in regard to Afghanistan, this was no way to lead an alliance that had just rallied with sincere and affecting solidarity to America’s side following the attacks of 9/11. After failing to follow up aggressively on their initial success in Afghanistan, and moving the Pentagon’s primary focus to Iraq, the Americans left their allies milling about in central Asia with inadequate forces (though the United States continued to field, by far, the largest national contingent). The Taliban began to recover. It was at this point that Canada, as one of the larger force contributors and bearers of casualties, should have co-ordinated with the other countries, agitated constructively and forcefully, and told the United States that if it didn’t produce a credible war plan and an appropriate U.S. force level to achieve it, we were all pulling out.

Instead, we plodded imperceptibly on in the Mission Unaccomplishable of holding Kandahar province (one million people), the Taliban’s heartland, including Kandahar City with 500,000 people, with only about 2,500 troops, and rarely more than 400 trigger-pullers in operation at a time, and for many months without helicopters. By comparison to this, even Horatius at the Bridge, Dollard facing the Indians, and the defenders of the Alamo all could be said to have had superfluous manpower.

Now, after many mistakes, the United States is executing an apparently successful plan to secure and depart Iraq, and has accorded Afghanistan 30,000 more first-class soldiers, under the leadership of a respected and successful allied force commander, General Stanley McChrystal. Across the border in Pakistan, meanwhile, a combination of Taliban outrages, U.S. diplomacy and assistance, and an apparently substantial move toward Pakistani military resolve, has transformed that country into a more willing and effective ally.

A recent poll by the BBC, ABC, and the German network ARD has revealed a sharp rise in Afghan support for the U.S.-NATO force presence (to 70%), and support for the present Afghan government, as opposed to the Taliban, of 90% to 6%. NATO is not an occupier, and the Taliban does not have a fraction of the popular support necessary for a truly successful insurgency, once the Afghan government forces are adequately large, armed and trained. Instead of padding around indecisively and furtively, bending to the pacifistic posturing of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, Canada’s government must lead domestic opinion to a new Afghan policy based on the following points.

Canada should remain at present strength in Afghanistan until President Obama’s proposed initiation of de-escalation in 18 months. Following that period, we would then determine our future policy, independently of the United States, but simultaneously. This commitment should be conditional on continuing to receive adequate support from the three crack U.S. Stryker battalions that have been placed under Canadian command at Kandahar. The question of detainees is a side-show. The Allies should develop a common policy about when to hand over detainees to the Afghan government, and what treatment of those detainees will be expected of the Afghans — a more universal implementation of the sort of policy that the Canadians already have in place, in other words.

The Harper government should aggressively repeat the rationale for the Afghan intervention originally advanced by the Chrétien government: that terrorism is a threat to all civilized countries, that Canada pledged to do its part, that NATO is the most successful alliance in history and the cornerstone of the security of all its members (except the United States, which provides most of the security), that this is a just and necessary war for the reasons that President Obama and other allied leaders (as well as three successive Canadian prime ministers of both major parties) have articulated, and that premature withdrawal would confirm the Bin Laden charge that the West is decadent and cowardly.

Finally, Harper should acknowledge that it would a fraud to leave, as is currently contemplated, fewer than 1,000 “non-combat” Canadians in the country: They would be nothing but sitting ducks. Canada’s foreign policy establishment must stop moping about Pearsonian peacekeeping and “punching above our weight.” Peacekeeping doesn’t work when there is war, and isn’t usually necessary when there isn’t.

Canada should recognize that it is one of the 12 or 14 most important countries of the 193 in the world, and bulk up its weight accordingly and, to apply that clichéd metaphor, punch that weight. We can’t wallow in nostalgia about peacekeeping and grumble about being under-recognized when we hide our light under a bushel, and announce we are pulling out of an eight-year commitment now that we are on the verge of participating in a much-desired and very necessary victory. In geopolitics, flyweights aren’t heavy-weights. There is no international free lunch. And being served one is an ignoble ambition for such a distinguished country as ours.


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Jan 2010)

Kabul attacks:Taliban propanda watch, _Globeite_ edition
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/kabul-attackstaliban-propanda-watch.html

_With apologies to Milnews.ca. First a real news story from Matthew Fisher of Canwest News..._

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Jan 2010)

Afstan: Dutch not fighting? "Bullshit"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/afstan-dutch-not-fighting-bullshit.html



> That's their commander in Uruzgan speaking...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2010)

For all of those who are using History as their basis for why we shouldn't be there, perhaps some of the words from Richards J Heuer Jr, Psychology of Intelligence Analysis may be of interest: 

Chapter 4 




> *Comparison with Historical Situations*
> 
> A third approach for going beyond the available information is comparison. An analyst seeks understanding of current events by comparing them with historical precedents in the same country, or with similar events in other countries. Analogy is one form of comparison. When an historical situation is deemed comparable to current circumstances, analysts use their understanding of the historical precedent to fill gaps in their understanding of the current situation. Unknown elements of the present are assumed to be the same as known elements of the historical precedent. Thus, analysts reason that the same forces are at work, that the outcome of the present situation is likely to be similar to the outcome of the historical situation, or that a certain policy is required in order to avoid the same outcome as in the past.
> 
> ...



LINK


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Jan 2010)

_Globeite_ Doug Saunders still can't tell a US Marine from a soldier 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/globeite-doug-saunders-still-cant-tell.html

Afstan: The US Army in Arghandab: a tale of two battalions 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/afstan-us-army-in-arghandab-tale-of-two.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Jan 2010)

Afstan: International conference/Globeite Doug Saunders smackdown 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/afstan-international-conference.html

Yet more US Army troops for CF's Task Force Kandahar/Globeite Doug Saunders smackdown (2) 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/yet-more-us-army-troops-for-cfs-task.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Feb 2010)

Talking to the Taliban/ANA *Update*/Beyond Uppestdate: Karzai clanger 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/02/talking-to-taliban.html



> Not as simple as many Canadian opposition politicians and pundits (really disgusting example here) seem to believe...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Feb 2010)

Video: Brig.-Gen. Jon Vance on Afstan--from CPAC:
http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&lang=e&clipID=3608



> On January 20th, 2010, in Ottawa, Brigadier-General Jonathan Vance, the former Canadian Forces commander in Kandahar, delivered a speech entitled "From the Front Line: Canadian Forces in Afghanistan".



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Feb 2010)

Aussies hope Dutch will maintain some presence in Uruzgan/US and Pak operations 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/02/aussies-hope-dutch-will-maintain-some.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Feb 2010)

Notice the resemblance?










Now take note of this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/02/02/adrian-macnair-peace-in-our-time-at-any-price.aspx


> Adrian MacNair: *Peace in our time, at any price*
> 
> Posted: February 02, 2010
> 
> ...




Canada, along with the rest of the US led West is practicing _appeasement_ politics again: but this time “we” are _appeasing_ our own base nature which is unwilling to do what is necessary to help the helpless and comfort the wretched of the earth – not, at least, as soon as the novelty wears off.


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Feb 2010)

Just remember what happened following the Vietnam “peace” agreement of 1973. 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/honor/peopleevents/e_paris.html
The consequential reality here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/timeline/tl3.html#b

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Feb 2010)

The Taliban are no more a hard core radical Islamist group than the Karzai family are a legitimate government members.  They are rival drug trafficking families.  If they can work it out on the Soprano's, they can work it out in Afghanistan.  That billion dollars is likely needed as tribute to pay off Mullah Omar and chums to right wrongs that they surely would be dinged with as a result of Karzai's ingenuous persecution over the years and buy the loyalty of the Army and police.  That is, so the Karzai's don't have to dig into the millions they have skimmed and scammed of us from their own accounts.  

Too bad about the mission.  It could have been awesome.  The Afghan citizens really thought we could make something happen for them seven odd years ago.  Now, in their eyes we're just one more nation in a long line of rich nation cut-and-runners who couldn't manage to do the right thing; install a government that cares more about the people and less about their bank accounts.  

I genuinely hope they have some decent human int resources in place for when the whole thing implodes a few years from now.  At least the CIA will be better able to track things from there at that point.


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Feb 2010)

Tough fighting for US Marines at Helmand, anger at Talibs rising/Countering *Update*
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/02/tough-fighting-for-us-marines-at.html


> ...
> Plus:
> 
> "*U.S. Announces Helmand Offensive*
> _In Unusual Tactic, Allies in Afghanistan Issue Press Release Describing Next Attack, in Bid to Intimidate the Taliban_"



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Feb 2010)

The Army, Haiti and Afstan 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/02/army-haiti-and-afstan.html



> ...I wonder if the Van Doos are extended in Haiti which regiment might provide the battalion take their place in Afstan--PPCLI, RCR, or a different one from the R22e? The government better make a decision fairly soon if a different battalion is to be readied for training. Gen. Leslie has put the ball firmly in their court. If the 3 Van Doo really has to be replaced in Afstan that will certainly stretch the Army--as indeed would replacing them in Haiti with some other unit...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Feb 2010)

Afstan: Whose war is it anyway? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/02/afstan-whose-war-is-it-anyway.html 



> ...if only the Canadian and British media would cover more than Kandahar and Helmand, respectively (since US forces are now fighting in much of Afstan the American media perforce now report on a broad area of the country--but focused almost exclusively on their own troops' actions). Can one imagine World War II or Korea being reported this way, paying almost exclusive attention to one's own country's specific area of operations? Why do media not recognize that there is war on and cover the whole thing--while of course giving greatest notice to one's own forces?



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Feb 2010)

One and a half concise pages at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute, the clear inference from which is that the government, opposition, most pundits and most of the population simply do not give a damn. My dears:

Afghanistan: Out of Sight…?
http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Afghanistan%20Out%20of%20Sight.pdf



> ABOUT THE AUTHOR
> 
> D.H. Burney© is a Senior Research Fellow for the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute (CDFAI) and served on the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan. Mr. Burney served as Ambassador to the United States from 1989-1993, culminating a distinguished thirty-year career with the Canadian Foreign Service. He is currently Senior Strategic Advisor to Ogilvy Renault LLP.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Feb 2010)

Another side to Pathans
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/02/another-side-to-pathans.html



> They are certainly not naturally of the Talib sort; consider the "Frontier Gandhi", Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan...
> 
> His son also became a major political figure--as did his daughter-in-law, Begum Wali Khan,
> http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2005\10\10\story_10-10-2005_pg7_46
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Feb 2010)

Start of a piece by Terry Glavin in the _National Post_:

Surrender by any other name
http://news.globaltv.com/world/story.html?id=2538871



> In recent days, UN officials and military commanders have begun to discuss a once-taboo option for Afghanistan: a negotiated political settlement with the Taliban. In a new series of commentary articles, beginning today, National Post contributors assess whether diplomacy can bring peace to Afghanistan.
> 
> From 1994 until 2001, while the Taliban was turning Afghanistan into a slave state and the people were reduced to eating rats and grass, the UN Special Mission to Afghanistan shuttled truce-talks envoys around the country. Mere weeks before Sept. 11, 2001, they were still at their keyboards in Kabul, composing plaintive appeals to Taliban officials. How did that turn out?
> 
> ...



While at _Small Dead Animals_:

Please upgrade your Liberal dictionary immediately!
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013315.html



> Taliban = "farmers in the wrong place at the wrong time"



Mr Glavin is returning to the Sandbox:

How The Peace Talks Lobby Gets Afghanistan Backwards, And Why It Doesn't Even Notice 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-peace-talks-lobby-gets-afghanistan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Feb 2010)

Some news re the Dutch, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ web site:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2588800


> Dutch government falls over mission in Afghanistan
> 
> Reuters
> 
> ...




If anyone is interested in Canada is going to “cut and run” in 2011 they need only ask themselves which party - BQ? Liberals? NDP? - would support a Conservative motion, if one were presented, to stay the course?


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Feb 2010)

More details, with Dutch sources:

Dutch out of Afstan after all (but maybe not completely) 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/02/dutch-out-of-afstan-after-all-but-maybe.html



> "...
> *Withdrawal*
> 
> The collapse of the government means that the  *withdrawal of Dutch troops from Afghanistan will now begin in August because caretaker ministers are not allowed to make controversial decisions* [emphasis added]...
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Feb 2010)

1) ANA: two from BruceR. at _Flit_:

Marja: not going too well
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_02_21.html#006654

Marja: not going too well, 2: the ANA performance
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_02_21.html#006655

2) ANP:

Afghan mess bigger than we thought
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/21/afghan-mess-bigger-than-we-thought//print/


> ...
> At the operational level, where I worked with the Afghan National Police (ANP) for 15 months, things look a lot worse.
> 
> Operationally, the effort is broken. Assets are misdirected, poorly managed and misused. Graft and corruption in the Afghan forces are endemic, and coalition forces unwittingly enable that corruption. Let's break that into two parts:
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Feb 2010)

AfPak: Josh Wingrove going _Globeite_?/A true Globeite
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/02/afpak-josh-wingrove-going-globeite-true.html


> One has been generally impressed with the pretty straight reporting of the _Globe and Mail's_ new man in the 'stan. Now however he seems to be catching the paper's stinkin' agenda. His story today...
> 
> Then there's ace _Globeite_ reporter, columnist, whatever Doug Saunders--a letter sent to the paper and not published...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Feb 2010)

Denmark: One Euro country where people support their Afghan mission 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/02/denmark-one-euro-country-where-people.html



> ...a story you'll not see in the Canadian media (note the chart at the end)...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Brasidas (24 Feb 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Denmark: One Euro country where people support their Afghan mission
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/02/denmark-one-euro-country-where-people.html
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Can't say I like how that table seems to say that one in twenty Canadians sent there's a dead man. One figure's talking about the number of troops actively deployed, another's the total number of dead over the course of the mission, and a third divides the two. When the losses were over several rotations.


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Feb 2010)

Terry Glavin, having talked to some pretty heavy Afghans, remains passionately against negotiating with the Taliban:

An Audience With Berhanuddin Rabbani, The Grand Old Man Of The Afghan Mujahideen
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/02/audience-with-berhanuddin-rabbani-grand.html



> KABUL – At his massively fortified residence in this city’s posh Wazir Akbar Khan district, Berhanuddin Rabbani, the godfather of Afghanistan's warlord bloc, uttered a dire warning. Any "exit strategy" from Afghanistan that proposes a power-sharing deal with the Taliban could plunge the country back into the raging, fratricidal warfare that preceded September 11, 2001.
> 
> “This is possible,” he said. “As I read history, when a nation’s problems become this complex and they are not solved, that could result in violence and revolutions and other unwanted things. Water is very soft, but if you put it under pressure, it will explode.”
> 
> ...



Read on.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Feb 2010)

Two at _The Torch_:

1) The coming Kandahar offensive and a certain reality 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/02/coming-kandahar-offensive-and-certain.html



> ...two solitudes [American and Canadian], or what?
> ...
> The simple fact is that the great majority of forces involved will be American, even if many are under Canadian operational command. The US now sees Kanadahar as their area of operations and Canadian should get used to it--and our reporters (and their editors) should cover things accordingly, and realistically.



2)  Afstan: A different timeline from ours
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/02/afstan-different-timeline-from-ours.html



> Most senior British Army officer:
> 
> "*General Sir David Richards: Forces reach 'turning point' in Afghanistan*
> _British forces could be pulled out of Afghanistan within five years, the head of the Army, General Sir David Richards, has disclosed..._"



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Mar 2010)

Who lost Afstan?  Maybe we did, or at least our governments. A story about the views of a former NATO Secretary General:

Afghan troop withdrawal signals NATO 'crisis,' says former alliance boss [NATO SG's are not exactly "bosses"]
http://news.globaltv.com/world/story.html?id=2646176



> Canada, despite its "robust" and "valiant" effort in Afghanistan, is among a group of countries contributing to a growing crisis caused by western allies who are failing to stay the course in that conflict, says the former secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
> 
> Lord George Robertson, a former British defence secretary who served as NATO's top civilian leader from 1999-2004, said the planned Canadian pullout of combat troops next year is dangerously premature.
> 
> ...



Quite. This is what our commander last year at Kandahar, Brig.-Gen. Jon Vance, said at a major public meeting March 3:
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/03/03/13103146-qmi.html
http://cda-cdai.ca/cdai/uploads/cdai/2009/06/2010agenda.pdf



> ...
> Vance says the mission was underfunded and under-resourced for most of the time Canadians have been deployed to the country, but at the same time the military was under pressure to fix what is essentially an at-risk community thousands of kilometres away, and to fix it before “our attention-deficit disorder society” gets impatient.
> 
> Vance also said the military can’t blame the media for the lack of public support for the mission because the military didn’t effectively communicate the mission.
> ...



My distinct impression (I was at the meeting) was that the "we" general Vance was referring to was not the CF but *rather the Canadian government*--which I thought a rather brave thing to do in public. And, by my interpretation, he is absolutely right.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (6 Mar 2010)

Don't pull out every soldier

Canada can make a huge difference by leaving a small contingent of military trainers in Afghanistan after the 2011 withdrawal deadline
Article Link
By Roland Paris, Citizen SpecialMarch 4, 2010

In yesterday's throne speech the federal government reiterated its plan to end Canada's military mission in Afghanistan next year. No one can fault Canadians for wanting to conclude this long, costly deployment. But by leaving behind a small contingent of troops to help train the Afghan Army, Canada could make a modest but vital contribution to the ongoing NATO operation.

Building Afghan security forces is central to NATO's disengagement strategy. The alliance hopes that the current "surge" of U.S. troops will reverse the insurgency's momentum and buy time to increase the size and capability of Afghan forces, thus making it possible to hand off the lead responsibility for security to Afghan army and police units, province by province, district by district.

Whether this plan will succeed or fail remains to be seen, but in a universe of bad options, it offers the best prospects for gradually ending NATO's massive Afghan mission in a responsible manner. (An irresponsible strategy, by contrast, would be to withdraw all NATO forces precipitously. Doing so would be a recipe for renewed civil war whose destructiveness would likely dwarf the guerrilla conflict now underway.)

In January, the Afghan government and its international backers agreed to nearly double the size of Afghanistan's army within two years. But building such a force will require many more military trainers from NATO countries. In fact, the alliance estimates that it needs 1,600 additional trainers by the end of this year.
More on link


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Mar 2010)

The ISI and the Afghan Taliban 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/03/isi-and-afghan-taliban.html



> ...
> It was my impression that Messrs Alexander and Kilcullen both effectively said the Pakistani military's ISI still essentially controls the Afghan Talibs; and I believe Alexander said the recent captures of certain Taliban leaders in Pakistan, presumably by the ISI, were in practice a Bad Thing since the guys taken might actually have been talked to...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Mar 2010)

Preparing for the coming Kandahar offensive (Canadians at end)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/03/preparing-for-coming-kandahar-offensive.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Mar 2010)

"Keeping our Promises--Canada in Afghanistan Post-2011: The Way Forward"--Report by Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee should be available here.
http://afghanistan-canada-solidarity.org/casc-report-keeping-our-promises
Directly military-related excerpts from the Synopsis:



> ...
> 
> * Canada should not be faulted for choosing to end its “combat role” in Kandahar in 2011, but it would be a folly for Canada to squander the expertise and experience our military has gained in Kandahar. It would be especially foolish to squander the trust that the Canadian Forces has established among the Pashtun people of Kandahar, from whom the Taliban derives most of its rank-and-file fighters, and within whom Talibanism has spread its deepest roots.
> * Canada’s “battle group” should come home. These soldiers can now withdraw with honour and with the heartfelt gratitude of Afghans and Canadians.
> ...



Not unreasonable, to my mind. 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (20 Mar 2010)

Canada may have painted itself into corner in Afghanistan
Article Link 
By Matthew Fisher, Canwest News serviceMarch 12, 2010

One of the principal reasons Canada ended up in a shooting war in Kandahar was the Martin government dithered for so long about what to do in Afghanistan that when it finally made up its mind about what to do in 2005, all the soft spots in the north and west of the country were grabbed by European allies such as France, Spain and Germany.

History looks set to repeat itself.

As Canada retreats from its biggest foreign commitment in more than half a century, European allies whose role in Afghanistan the Harper government has often strongly criticized, have quietly volunteered for nearly 600 relatively safe, non-combat positions as mentors to Afghanistan's burgeoning security forces.

Everyone of those jobs would seem to be a perfect fit for Canada's relatively small but highly professional army and for a country that has grown weary of combat.

There have been 130 Canadian soldiers killed in Kandahar since the Martin government sent troops to the heart of the war in 2006. Over the past four years, Canada has spent billions of dollars fighting the Taliban.

Notwithstanding this loss of blood and treasure, or arguably because of it, the Harper government has confirmed a decision Parliament made two years ago to stop combat operations in Kandahar in 2011.

But the Harper government has gone much further than Parliament did, loudly stating that other than a few embassy guards, no Canadian troops would remain anywhere in Afghanistan beyond the end of next year.

It is a position complicated by the fact the government has declared its intention to continue its massive diplomatic and aid effort in Kandahar, without providing any hint of how the Canadians who do this work are to be protected.

At the same time, Ottawa has rejected a military training mission the Europeans have been signing up for.

The intent of that hugely ambitious program is to triple the size of the Afghan National Army to 300,000 and nearly double the size of the Afghan National Police to about 130,000.

Canada has been silent although NATO has declared mentoring is fast becoming its top priority and the best way for the alliance to achieve an orderly, rather than a premature exit strategy from Afghanistan.

Ironically, every one of the 200 Canadian mentors working closely with the Afghan security forces in Kandahar will be sent home at the very time when the need for such advisers is peaking as a result of a highly successful recruiting campaign backstopped by a steep increase in salaries for soldiers and police.

There are still about 700 NATO mentoring spots available, but most of them are expected to be spoken for by the time the traditional Afghan fighting season reaches its peak again this summer.

Military officers and civilians working for NATO in Kandahar and Kabul have said Canada has the resources to provide at least 400 experienced mentors and, if it did so, they would most likely be assigned work to a training academy, perhaps in Kabul, where they would be at low risk.

Hans Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO secretary general, and senior NATO commanders have publicly implored Canada to keep some forces in Afghanistan.

Behind their polite, well-mannered words has been a growing frustration at Ottawa's decision to cut and run at the moment when the war enters what NATO's top commander, U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has called a decisive phase.

The Dutch have announced that its troops are leaving, too. But their departure later this year is not regarded as a serious blow because they have had far fewer forces and have done far less fighting than Canada. The unspoken fear in Kabul and Brussels is if Canada walks away, other nations that have done far less may use this as a pretext to get out, too.

Despite what the Harper government has said, the expectation in NATO circles here is that Ottawa will eventually conclude it should continue to have some kind of military role in Afghanistan.

However, if as happened in 2006, the government waits much beyond this summer before putting up its hand, the soft spots will once again be taken and Canada's options will narrow greatly.
More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Mar 2010)

This, from the news section:


> The U.S. government will ask Canada to keep as many as 500 to 600 troops in Afghanistan after this country’s military deployment in Kandahar ends in 2011.
> 
> Sources inside and outside the government say the formal request is expected toward the end of this year through NATO. The troops would act as military trainers and would most likely be located in Kabul. The deployment would not involve putting Canadian troops in harm’s way, but could nonetheless set off a rancorous national debate among Canadians and especially within the Liberal Party.
> 
> ...



And even a columnist in the Mop & Pail realizes an important point:


> .... If our troops are serving as military trainers, sooner or later they will have to accompany the Afghan troops they are training into combat operations. Which means they will be in harms way ....


Well, maybe they don't have to head into the breech with the troops, but that's only if they don't want to be as credible as some, right?


----------



## McG (26 Mar 2010)

> *THE AFGHAN MISSION - This U.S. plea is a Harper saver *
> Being pressed to keep 600 Canadian troops in Kabul would give the PM a way out of his 2011 exit vow
> David Bercuson
> The Globe & Mail
> ...



... and more ...



> Afghanistan Honouring Canada's commitment
> Editorial
> Globe & Mail
> 26 Mar 2010
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Mar 2010)

Based on this exchange in the House of Commons this week, Terry Glavin divines what our post-2011 mission will look like:


> .... Ignatieff's version of the question 'What am I thinking?' elicited this weird response from Cannon: "Canada will continue to maintain diplomatic relations and monitor development through its embassy in Kabul, as we do in other countries."
> 
> This isn't a decision, you should realize. It's the consequence of the absence of a decision. It's the direct result of the absence of any Parliamentary debate, the non-existence of any consideration or resolution or motion about what Canada should be doing in Afghanistan after 2011 - which is next year, remember.
> 
> ...



Well said, Terry!


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Apr 2010)

A generally anti-PM screed, but not entirely without merit:


> .... The desire for Canada to continue its presence in Afghanistan is not limited to our NATO coalition partners; Family members of soldiers killed in Afghanistan are also questioning Harper's arbitrary withdrawal date, fearing that not seeing the mission through to the end will mean their loved ones died in vain.
> 
> Myles Kennedy, the father of Pte. Kevin Kennedy who was killed in a roadside blast on Easter Sunday in 2007, believes "we came in to do a job, and our job will not be complete if (Harper) pulls out the whole group." Kennedy's faith in the success of the mission is strong, a CTV report noting "(Kennedy) was amazed at the scale of NATO's buildup for this spring's planned offensive in Kandahar, and for the first time since his son's death...he's optimistic that war can be turned around."
> 
> Canadians need an open, honest debate about the possibility of remaining in Afghanistan post 2011, and Parliament should revisit the 2008 motion for troop withdrawal to discuss the merits and drawbacks of either extending, or ending, the Afghan mission. It's clear that the expertise, tenacity, and effectiveness of the Canadian Forces has had a positive impact on our NATO allies; Their request for our continuance in Afghanistan demonstrates their belief in Canada's importance to the ultimate success of the mission ....


I'm guessing, though, that pro-continuation editorials will remain the "winning lottery ticket" level of minority at rabble.ca.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Apr 2010)

I believe that the PM is waiting for Iggy to bring to the floor of parliament a motion to remain in Afghanistan in some way. That way he can point to the LPC. If Iggy thinks he can get anything out of such a motion (i.e. abortion/foreign policy) he will.

We will see if Iggy falls into the trap.


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Apr 2010)

Terry Glavin et al. on Afstan (further links in quote at original):  
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/04/moral-dimensions.html  



> ...
> I was on Rex Murphy's Cross-Country Checkup today [see April 4 here,
> http://www.cbc.ca/checkup/archives.html
> audio here].
> ...


 
Mark  
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Apr 2010)

Afstan and our hopeless media
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/afstan-and-our-hopeless-media.html




> Now it's the _National Post's_ turn to bugger things up...



Mark
Otawa


----------



## George Wallace (6 Apr 2010)

I see no mention of our Police coming back as well.  We have members of the RCMP, Provincial and Municiple forces training the ANP.  There are also members of CBSA, Corrections officers and other security agencies working in Afghanistan.  Are they staying or coming back as well?


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Apr 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I see no mention of our Police coming back as well.  We have members of the RCMP, Provincial and Municiple forces training the ANP.  There are also members of CBSA, Corrections officers and other security agencies working in Afghanistan.  Are they staying or coming back as well?


Good question.  Here's what's out there right now:
- The latest messaging (from the PM 30 Mar 10 in the House of Commons) states:


> Canada's military mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011, in accordance with a resolution adopted by Parliament.  We plan on remaining involved in Afghanistan in terms of *development, governance and humanitarian assistance*.


Good question - here's what we hear for now:
- According to the GoC's web page, any benchmarks for AFG police training end as of 2011, and is considered "security" assistance.  If the "military" component ends, it's possible only Cdn police mentors will stay.
- Prison reform is also covered under "Security" benchmarks, but since we're only hearing about an end to "military" involvement, Cdn prison staff should be staying.
- I'm guessing CBSA staff would be most involved with the "Border" benchmarks, which to this point allocate $ only to 2011.  If this is considered a "governance" issue, they should stay.

My tea-leaf-reading :2c: barring anything firmer from the Government (anyone?  anyone?).



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I believe that the PM is waiting for Iggy to bring to the floor of parliament a motion to remain in Afghanistan in some way. That way he can point to the LPC. If Iggy thinks he can get anything out of such a motion (i.e. abortion/foreign policy) he will.  We will see if Iggy falls into the trap.





> Bob Rae, the Liberal Party's foreign affairs critic, whose declaration that Canada must re-dedicate itself to Afghanistan was a delight to hear, as I'm sure Laurie Hawn will agree.


Based on this transcript of a speech he made in the House of Commons last October during debate (3 pg PDF), Rae sounds like he gets the nuance better than Iggy (low bar that it is).


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Apr 2010)

Afstan: German views on ANP--and the _Bundeswehr_
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/afstan-german-views-on-anp-and.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Apr 2010)

This, from the Canadian Press:


> Canada will send an additional 90 troops to Afghanistan to help train both the fledgling army and local police forces.
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay made the surprise announcement in Kabul, only one day after Prime Minister Stephen Harper unleashed blistering criticism of President Hamid Karzai .... Ottawa stepped forward with the extra soldiers, answering a call from NATO to boost training of Afghan security forces.
> 
> ...


Cool - so, what happens AFTER 2011?


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Apr 2010)

Not news: PM Harper "an Afghan skeptic"/"Hurl time" 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/not-news-pm-harper-afghan-skeptichurl.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2010)

The US "drone" campaign is doing a stand up job across the border in Pakistan. Disrupting leadership, training, logistics and recruiting in the "safe zone" should have some tangible benefits in Afghanistan itself:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20100407.aspx



> *The Great Fear*
> 
> April 7, 2010: In North Waziristan, a section of Pakistan's tribal territories that borders Afghanistan, there is growing fear among the Islamic militants who have long used the area as a base area and refuge. So far this year, there has been at least one missile attack a week, leaving more al Qaeda or Taliban, usually leaders, dead. American UAVs, often operating in pairs, or packs of four, roam the skies almost constantly. Terrorist leaders are now terrorized, and have cut back on travel, and use of satellite phones. When terrorist leaders do travel, they use public transport, surrounded by women and children. The terrorists know that American ROE (Rules of Engagement) discourage "collateral damage" (civilian casualties), so the terrorists try to have women and children around at all times. But the locals know that the ROE doesn't absolutely forbid civilian casualties, and either refuse to rent rooms in their compounds to al Qaeda or Taliban leaders, or flee if the terrorists insist on staying.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Apr 2010)

A bit of wiggle room in what CanWest is quoting the Minister saying:


> .... MacKay, while speaking at the end of a conference call from Kabul, seemed to add an element of ambiguity to just what the Canadian role will be after its military has pulled out of Afghanistan.
> 
> "*There are other ways that we will continue to contribute. Training is obviously one of those options, and I suspect there will be further discussion about what the mission will look like post-2011*," MacKay said.
> 
> ...



Hmmm - in Parliament last week, the PM was clear:  "The military mission will end in 2011."  However, if we're talking about "parameters" placed by the March 2008 motion, there are ways to continue a presence without CF troops in Kandahar.

1)  Civilian instructors + basing them in Kabul = no _CF troops in Kandahar_

2)  Civilian contractors + civilian spy planes over Kandahar = no more _CF troops_ in Kandahar

Or was this, as some say, a trial balloon?


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Apr 2010)

Afstan and the meaning of words (and lack of leadership)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/afstan-and-meaning-of-words-and-lack-of.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Apr 2010)

Afstan and the government: Politically craven and immorally audacious
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/afstan-and-government-politically.html 



> These people really do wrench one's guts. So RCMP and municipal cops can take the risks involved in training Afghans post-2011 but not the Candian Forces...
> 
> The government is simply lying--there is sadly no other word--when it says the motion demands "the military mission will come to an end in 2011". Why, when doing stories like the Canwest News one above, do not our hopelessly lazy major media make the effort to point out what the motion actually says? Though here's an exception that proves the rule, good on Murray Brewster of CP--though even he suffers from terminological inexactitude...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Apr 2010)

Our vanishing Provincial Reconstruction Team at Kandahar? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/our-vanishing-provincial-reconstruction.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Apr 2010)

Interesting public meeting in Toronto, Saturday, April 17--from Terry Glavin, with more links:

Toronto, Taj Hall, April 17: Ending Afghanistan's Agony and Canada's Paralysis. 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/04/toronto-taj-hall-april-17-ending.html



> TORONTO - Former United Nations’ deputy special representative in Afghanistan Christopher Alexander will join Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae and  Najia Haneefi, founder of the Afghan Women’s Political Participation Committee, in a public discussion this Saturday about Canada’s future role in Afghanistan.
> 
> Other speakers include Afghanistan’s Ambassador to Canada Jawed Ludin, Toronto coordinator for the Canada Afghanistan Solidarity Committee Babur Malawdin, and journalist Terry Glavin, a Solidarity Committee co-founder.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Apr 2010)

What's the difference between the Balkans and Afstan?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/whats-difference-between-balkans-and.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Apr 2010)

Afstan: Senate committee webcast, April 19: Capstick, Glavin, Vance
http://parl.gc.ca/Common/Committee_SenNotice.asp?Language=E&meeting_id=10856&Parl=40&Ses=3&comm_id=76



> Look who's appearing today (live webcast should be here):
> http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx?viewmode=4&categoryid=-1&currentdate=2010-04-19&eventid=6911&languagecode=12298
> 
> National Security and Defence
> Monday, April 19, 2010 4:00 pm...



Sort of thing the the Commons' committee should be looking at but isn't.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Apr 2010)

Credit where due - CP beat me to this one:


> Canada's role will shift from the war room to the classroom after troops leave Afghanistan next year.
> 
> A decade-long involvement in Afghanistan will last up to another 10 years as Canada oversees the training of Afghan teachers.
> 
> ...



This from MERX:


> The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is seeking to retain the services of a Consultant to do the Design and implementation of the Teacher Certification and Accreditation of Teacher Training Institution in Afghanistan.
> 
> The project goal and objectives are to establish a system for the certification of teachers and the accreditation of teacher training institutions in Afghanistan
> 
> ...



Full Terms of Reference & Background attached.

- edited to add reference, solicitation numbers -
_Reference Number  	194950
Solicitation Number 	2010-A-034216-1_


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Apr 2010)

Karzais' control of Kandahar/Brit shift there? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/karzais-control-of-kandaharbrit-shift.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Apr 2010)

Afstan: Dutch withdrawal planning--but maybe not completely/Canada? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/afstan-dutch-withdrawal-planning-but.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Apr 2010)

*US in Afstan: Why Helmand before Kandahar? Logistics* 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/us-in-afstan-why-helmand-before.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Apr 2010)

Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee meetings: Edmonton, April 27, Calgary, April 28
Details:



> CASC Event in Edmonton on April 27
> 
> Date & Time:
> Tuesday April 27thTime: 7-9pm
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Apr 2010)

Why we fought in Afstan/Afghan-Canadian *Update* 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-we-fought-in-afstan.html



> To enable Pakistan effectively to return as the predominant power, as it was when the Talibs were in power? Lovely prospect. But with our 2011 military pull-out in view Canada will have about zero influence regarding future geopolitical developments (not that the government would have much idea what to do with any such influence). From Ahmed Rashid (links in original)...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Apr 2010)

Text of latest Pentagon report:
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/Report_Final_SecDef_04_26_10.pdf

Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan
Report to Congress in accordance with section 1230 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181), as amended

and

United States Plan for Sustaining the Afghanistan National Security Forces
Report to Congress in accordance with section 1231 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008
(Public Law 110-181)

More:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/28/AR2010042805747.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-0429-us-afghan-20100429,0,2848935.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Apr 2010)

AfPak paranoia (plus India) 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/afpak-paranoia.html



> More reasons solutions will not be easy...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 May 2010)

1)  The Canadian Press says Canada's future mission is being discussed in whispers in the halls:


> The future of the Afghan mission is quietly being shaped in the corridors and backrooms of Parliament Hill.
> 
> Here, some Conservatives and Liberals are having hushed talks about Canada's role in Afghanistan beyond next year, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> ...



2)  What happened to the web page for Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan?  Hoping it's just maintenance, or a temporary outage.  It's back.

_- edit to fix link to Special Committee page -_


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 May 2010)

Current RCR roto to Kandahar last full battle group? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/current-rcr-roto-to-kandahar-last-full.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (3 May 2010)

Tories, Grits talking post-2011 role in Afghanistan
Article Link

The Canadian Press

The future of the Afghan mission is quietly being shaped in the corridors and backrooms of Parliament Hill.

Here, some Conservatives and Liberals are having hushed talks about Canada's role in Afghanistan beyond next year, The Canadian Press has learned.

As MPs from all sides try to resolve a long-simmering dispute over access to uncensored Afghanistan detainee documents, parallel albeit passing discussions about the mission are underway in Ottawa.

The overtures aren't formal. People interviewed for this story stressed the talks are more like feelers going out than anything else.

But what arises from these casual chats could have profound implications on Canada's military and civilian functions in Afghanistan.

Parliament passed a motion two years ago to end combat operations in Kandahar by July 2011. But the motion says nothing about staying in other parts of the country. Prime Minister Stephen Harper added the rider that every Canadian soldier would leave Afghanistan.

Harper is believed to be privately skeptical and worried that Canada has been mired in an endless conflict.

Others see it differently.

A senior member of the Conservative caucus said "two or three" top Liberals approached him recently about the Afghanistan quandary.

Tory Senator Hugh Segal, a one-time adviser to Harper who also served as chief of staff to prime minister Brian Mulroney, said the overtures started a few months ago.

"I've had at least two or three senior people (from) the Liberal party say that they are more than open-minded to a discussion about a military training presence," he said.

Segal said he has not spoken about this to the prime minister, and he has no formal authority to broker a deal on the Afghan mission. But that hasn't stopped him from having private chats with Grits.

"I've actually had them, off and on, for the last two-and-a-half to three months," Segal said.

"The Liberal caucus people with whom I have spoken are all kind of front-bench people who noticed and asked many questions of the kind you're asking, and who have indicated that they would be open if something were to come in the process," he added.

"But they're people who struck me as reasonably senior in the process."

Both parties seem to be sussing each other out. Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh said some Tories have casually approached him to get a read on his party's position on Afghanistan.

"(The) odd Conservative has asked me: 'Where are you guys?' And my answer always has been" 'Look, come up with a proposal, give it to us,'" he said in an interview.

Another senior Liberal told The Canadian Press the party has "tried to be constructive, trying to make it clear to the government we're open to discussions on training."

But so far the Grits have been "surprised by the rigidity of the Harper government."

"It sounds like they want out, period."  
More on link


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 May 2010)

What an irony it would be if in the end the Liberals effectively shamed the government into agreeing to a post-2011 CF Afghan mission of some sort. I would think that Prof. Amir Attaran, 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/afstan-true-nature-of-up-and-at-em.html
amongst others, 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-is-st-steve-staples-rideau.html
would be most disappointed at such an eventuality--and that the pesky detainee docs business would have to be put out of the way first.

It would also be nice, for planning purposes at a minimum, for the CF to get firm political guidance on any future Afghan commitment pretty soon.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace (3 May 2010)

Of course that would mean that the Government would actually be able to make up its mind.  We are fairly certain that that is not going to happen.  Perhaps, a la Jean Chretien, if we ignore it, it will go away.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 May 2010)

I thought this article was a good sum up of the situation on the ground over there:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100501/world/as_afghan_king_of_maiwand
US Army captain who sets out to build local Afghan government known as a king

Sat May 1, 2:07 PM


By Sebastian Abbot, The Associated Press

HUTAL, Afghanistan - In the U.S. Army, Casey Thoreen is just a 30-year-old captain. Around here, he's known as the "King of Maiwand" district — testimony to the fact that without the young captain and a fat international wallet, local government here as in much of the insurgency-ravaged south could not function at all.

Setting up effective governments at the district level is key to U.S. strategy. U.S. officials hope that providing basic services will draw support away from the Taliban, especially here in the Islamist group's heartland of Kandahar province.

But in this dusty farming community 40 miles (60 kilometres) west of Kandahar, Thoreen has discovered that bolstering the authority of a district governor, who relies on him almost completely for financial resources and credibility, is a delicate balancing act. He also knows the effort is unsustainable without greater support from the central Afghan government in Kabul.

"We are putting a big gamble on this," Thoreen said. "Any of this stuff we're doing here, not just at our level but the $800 billion we have spent so far in the country, is contingent on the government being effective."

For now, Thoreen and Maiwand's district governor, Obaidullah Bawari, are working with what they have — which isn't much.

The 49-year-old Bawari, who has occupied the post for a year, has no staff except his personal assistant and no government budget except for the roughly $400 monthly salary that he receives from Kabul. He is responsible for civilian government operations in the district, including water, power and schools, and he mediates disputes.

There are about 150 Afghan police deployed in Maiwand, but they report to both the chief of police in Kandahar City as well as the provincial governor.

"Everything you see here is from the coalition forces," said Bawari, sweeping his hand toward the centre of the district capital, Hutal, where the Army has paid for a new government headquarters, an agricultural centre and various other projects.

It's a picture repeated across the country, including the ethnic Pashtun heartland of southern Afghanistan where opposition to the government and support for the Taliban run deep.

The Afghan government recently launched a new program backed by the U.S. to increase support to 80 key districts in the country, many of them in the south and east.

But Kandahar's provincial governor, Tooryalai Wesa, visited Maiwand for the first time recently and said he didn't have any additional resources to offer the district.

"That kind of blew my mind," said Thoreen, a West Point graduate from Seattle, Washington. "After nine years in Afghanistan we're still at this point."

When the troops from 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment first arrived in Hutal in September, Bawari basically had no authority within the district because he doesn't come from a powerful family and isn't well-educated.

"He was very intimidated, very helpless and had no sense of his responsibilities," Thoreen said.

The troops, who live in a small base in the middle of Hutal, have tried to boost Bawari's standing by encouraging him to take credit for development projects the U.S. military funded. They have also set up a series of traditional meetings with tribal elders, known as shuras, in an attempt to enlist their support.

"Through the district leader and us, the elders are involved in laying out the ideas for these projects and actually implementing them," Thoreen said. "All that has enhanced and empowered the district leader as well."

But the dynamic gets more complicated when Thoreen and the district governor disagree on an issue. That presents the captain with the difficult choice: either overrule Bawari and damage his authority or give in and accept a decision he believes is bad for the mission.

Such a situation arose at a recent shura when 25 farmers showed up to demand the return of more than 300 pounds (135 kilograms) of opium that Special Forces had seized from a car.

Thoreen refused to return the opium or compensate them for it, saying U.S. forces have been clear that while they will not seize drugs from individual farmers, they will target smugglers. He sidelined Bawari during the debate because he knew the district governor disagreed with him and wanted to return the opium.

"I knew he would go that way in the shura if I opened it up to him, so I intentionally did not ask his opinion on it," said Thoreen.

Afterward, Bawari complained that the captain's decision damaged his credibility.

"The coalition forces didn't give the farmers a good answer and they walked away angry with us," he said.

But Thoreen said there have been other times when he has caved to the district governor's wishes, including agreeing to release three insurgents who had been caught with weapons just before they were about to attack a NATO supply convoy. He freed them after significant pressure from Bawari and a large number of tribal elders, who promised to prevent the men from engaging in future insurgent activity.

"It may not have been the greatest thing to do since we arrested one of the guys again doing something similar, but we created value in the district leader for the people through that decision," Thoreen said.

The district governor certainly appreciates Thoreen's efforts and says he is worried about what will happen when the captain leaves this summer with the rest of the 5th Stryker Brigade.

"We need the next person who comes to be exactly like Capt. Thoreen, patient and very smart," said Bawari. "If we get that kind of person, we won't have any problems."

Thoreen is flattered by the compliment, but adds a word of caution.

"I think that's all right as long as other people don't see that and think he's dependent on me," Thoreen said.

If the district leader isn't getting his budget, it's because KC doesn't believe he will use it for running the office and will pocket it.  Oh wait, that is why he got fired the first time.  

Honestly, it really just feels like there is a tonne of heel dragging by the Afghans.  It isn't education, it isn't resources.  It's DESIRE.  They have no _reason_ to make things work on their own because we keep doing it for them.  They must think we ( the ISAF "we") are the biggest suckers that exist with the deepest pockets.  The previous district leader was no better in Maywand either.  

I don't doubt that motivated individuals on the ground can teach governance.  But the Army is not the right tool for that job.  Good governance needs to come from the highest levels and I have not seen anything that appears to suggest that anybody is saying "get a grip or we are gone".  So great, we stay back and help train/equip their army and police so that they are able to tackle anything that comes their way.  So what?  How does that change the picture on the street for Joe Khandaharian?  While I was there, any police who tried to make a difference simply got transferred out of the area.  

I would like to hear our government make some noises that suggest that they are willing to put a boot in the arse of the Karzai crime family government before anybody indicates they are willing to go any further with that country.  Lives lost, treasure wasted.  Enough carrot, I want to see some stick.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 May 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Of course that would mean that the Government would actually be able to make up its mind.  We are fairly certain that that is not going to happen.  Perhaps, a la Jean Chretien, if we ignore it, it will go away.


Well said - the troops, those who may stay behind and Canadians deserve better.


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 May 2010)

At War: Notes From the Front Lines
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/

A good blog from the _NY Times_. Latest piece:
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/toggling-between-fighting-and-outreach-in-afghanistan/



> *Toggling Between Fighting and Outreach in Afghanistan*
> By C.J. CHIVERS
> 
> However the Afghan war is faring over all, across the wide and varied expanse of Afghanistan, with all of its political and cultural complexity, one thing is abundantly clear: toggling between fighting and outreach can create head-spinning scenes. Some of these scenes underline the difficulties inherent in a counterinsurgency doctrine that mixes lopsided violence with attempts to make nice. But they also simultaneously demonstrate that the efforts to follow the doctrine far from Kabul, out on remote ground, have become a central part of how the war is waged, even as the merits of the doctrine are quietly debated.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 May 2010)

Afstan: The Marja offensive in Helmand (and Kandahar)--looking at that glass (with a reference to Bernard Fall)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/afstan-marja-offensive-in-helmand-and.html



> It all depends...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 May 2010)

Hot time in Kandahar City? And CF? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/hot-time-in-kandahar-city-and-cf.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 May 2010)

Kandahar City: Another view 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/kandahar-city-another-view.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 May 2010)

It seems this event is open to the public:
http://www.canadianinternationalcouncil.org/download/calendardo/nationalca/invitationen_may25pdf?attachment=1



> You are cordially invited to join the Canadian International Council and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Canada for a timely event:
> 
> *Expert Panel Discussion on Afghanistan Disengagement: Balancing Security, Foreign and Domestic Policy Implications. A Transatlantic Dialogue.*
> 
> ...



Agenda:



> http://www.canadianinternationalcouncil.org/download/calendardo/nationalca/agendaen_may25pdf?attachment=1
> 
> 4:00 pm  Welcome by Colin Robertson, President, National Capital Branch, CIC, and Meike Wöhlert, Canada Liaison Officer, FES
> 
> ...



Somewhat related:
http://afghanistan-canada-solidarity.org/events



> ...
> The Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee is holding events across Canada...
> 
> CASC Event in Halifax on May 16...
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 May 2010)

Afstan: Dutch courage
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/afstan-dutch-courage.html



> Looks like for real. Further to this post,
> 
> "*Afstan: Prime Minister as, er, brave (or is that principled?) as his Dutch counterpart?*"
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 May 2010)

US set to take over Dutch ISAF mission
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/us-set-take-over-dutch-isaf-mission



> ...
> 
> The Dutch mission in the Afghan province of Uruzgan which is due to end this year is likely to be taken over by the US army.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 May 2010)

Sure is complicated being a soldier these days--an awful lot being asked (start of lengthy _Washington Post_ piece):

War of persuasion: The modern U.S. officer emerges in Afghanistan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/15/AR2010051503645.html



> NARAY, AFGHANISTAN -- Lt. Col. Robert B. Brown could hear the fear in his 24-year-old lieutenant's voice on the patchy radio. "We have enemy inside the wire. It is really bad here," 1st Lt. Andrew Bundermann said. "We need those [expletive] birds now."
> 
> Just before 6 a.m., more than 300 insurgents launched a massive attack on Bundermann's remote outpost in the Kamdesh district of northeastern Afghanistan. By 6:30 three of Bundermann's soldiers were dead, and the Apache attack helicopters he desperately wanted weren't going to arrive for another half hour.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 May 2010)

"Canada seeks U.S. protection in post-2011 Afghanistan"/Our Afghan Sphynx 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/canada-seeks-us-protection-in-post-2011.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 May 2010)

Canadian to be deputy commander new ISAF RC South (East)/Brits to Kandahar 2011? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/canadian-to-be-isaf-deputy-commander-rc.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (20 May 2010)

> *Afghan exit strategy a non-starter*
> Martin Regg Cohn
> Charlottetown - The Guardian
> 20 May 10
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 May 2010)

Afstan: Brits going wobbly/Not shifting to Kandahar
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/afstan-brits-going-wobblynot-shifting.html



> What's a poor Afghan to think?
> 
> "*Liam Fox flies to Afghanistan seeking to speed up troop withdrawal*
> 
> The Government hopes to speed up withdrawal of thousands of British troops from Afghanistan and has ruled out any move from Helmand province to neighbouring Kandahar..."



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 May 2010)

Stupid hyperbole about forthcoming Kandahar ops (and a bit of orbat fun)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/stupid-hyperbole-about-forthcoming.html



> This really is over-the-top on the part of the US Marine Colonel and can only lead to misinterpretation and disappointment:
> 
> "*Upcoming Afghan battle is 'our D-Day'*..."



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 May 2010)

Aussie special forces at Kandahar/The silence of the Canadians 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/aussie-special-forces-at-kandaharthe.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 May 2010)

Afstan: Continuing CF presence?  Well, well, well, one does wonder why Matthew Fisher (more here and here) 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/kaf-attack-or-enemy-within-notably.html
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=3067325
of Canwest News buried this at the very end of story on another sad matter--good on Norman Spector's assiduous reading :
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/MIND.htm



> ...
> *More bets here*
> 
> *--What Canwest is reporting*
> ...



Now surely anyone talking with NATO has some sort of government blessing?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (25 May 2010)

This was the Taliban's Tet Offensive.....militarily a failure, but a PR coup as far as confirming the western populace's distaste for the war......


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 May 2010)

Afghanistan: “This is a bleeding ulcer right now”
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/26/afghanistan-this-is-a-bleeding-ulcer-right-now/

A post by Paul Wells of _Maclean's_ magazine, one of our few pundits who make a serious effort to understand things Afghan rather than treating them merely as a sub-set of Canadian politics:



> Gen. Stanley McCrystal checks up on the progress in Marja and discovers, in extraordinarily frank language, that there hasn’t been enough.
> http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/24/94740/mcchrystal-calls-marjah-a-bleeding.html#ixzz0oyXg8C2L
> Marja is intended to be a prelude to the push in Kandahar that will be the last major Canadian operation [more here]
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/stupid-hyperbole-about-forthcoming.html
> before the bulk of our military engagement there ends. And Marja is not going well at all.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 May 2010)

Although "Marja is not going well at all," this from the Associated Press, shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the _Copyright  Act_, suggests building a new local government could take 3-4 months:


> A senior NATO general in Afghanistan says it will probably be months before Afghans in Marjah shun the Taliban and form a strong local government.
> 
> British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter tells reporters Wednesday that the 3-month-old, U.S.-led NATO operation in the southern region has been a military success. But Afghans in Marjah have been reluctant to form a strong government capable of shaking off Taliban influence.
> 
> Carter, who is NATO's commander in southern Afghanistan, acknowledges that the process of building a new local government could take 3 to 4 months. Carter said a second major offensive in Kandahar was on schedule to ramp up this summer.


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 May 2010)

US MPs working with ANP in Kandahar City/Field reporting
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/us-mps-working-with-anp-in-kandahar.html



> David Zucchino of the _LA Times_ again gives on-scene reporting, including on CF, that our major media seldom do (but see below)...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Spr.Earl (28 May 2010)

Yup a Multi National Viet Nam.
We won't win this conflict, and what for it our Gov. will come up with a excuse to stay.


----------



## GAP (28 May 2010)

US soldiers ask 'who is the enemy?' in Kandahar
Article Link
By Claire Truscott (AFP) – 7 hours ago

BERLANDAY, Afghanistan — As Afghan village leader Gul Agha pours another cup of tea for American soldiers sitting under his grape trellis, they get to the point of their visit: they don't want him to quit.

As the US military leads a massive build-up of forces in Kandahar, southern Afghanistan's most important battle ground where the outcome of America's longest war overseas may be decided, the toughest job is knowing who to trust.

When 1st squadron 71st cavalry regiment arrived in the province last month, outgoing Canadian soldiers told them that as an ex-Taliban, the village head was their best source of intelligence on the bombs being laid in their path.

Unfortunately, as they tried to build bridges, Gul Agha quit.

"We have no informants right now, we're still working on it. We have been here a month," said Lieutenant Joe Theinert, 24.

"They'll eventually come around. They don't know you. They don't trust you when you first arrive," he said.

The fight for Kandahar is seen as crucial to a US strategy to end the nearly nine-year and costly conflict against the Taliban.

In December, US President Barack Obama ordered 30,000 extra American troops into Afghanistan, where the vast majority are disembarking in the south, and pushing the total nationwide NATO deployment to 150,000 by August.

The US force in Afghanistan has roughly tripled since Obama took office in January 2009 and at 94,000 has now exceeded the 92,000 based in Iraq.

But public support is dwindling. Obama wants US troops to start leaving from July 2011 and has limited the objective to securing key population centres from the Taliban and prepping Afghan government forces to take over.

The counter-insurgency doctrine means that in Kandahar's Dand district, as in countless areas of Afghanistan, troops are working on security and development in a bid to win over Afghans and leave secure structures in place.

US Captain Jon Villasenor, 36, said the toughest aspect was knowing who to trust on the battlefield of a guerrilla war.

"We don't know who the enemy is," he said.

"I don't feel I'm fighting Taliban, I feel I'm maybe fighting a criminal element or maybe a disenfranchised element that may be influenced by Taliban.

"I wish he'd wear a uniform and a name plate that said 'enemy'. Once I understand his motivations and ideology I can target that and leverage that against him.

"Until then I'm kind of fumbling around," he said.
More on link


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 May 2010)

Marja: "...a bleeding ulcer right now”'? (McClatchy reporting)/Taliban--and Afghan--thinking 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/marja-how-bleeding-ulcer-right-now.html



> Further to this post based on a McClatchy story,
> 
> *Marja: '...“This is a bleeding ulcer right now”'*
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 May 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> When 1st squadron 71st cavalry regiment arrived in the province last month, outgoing Canadian soldiers told them that as an ex-Taliban, the village head was their best source of intelligence on the bombs being laid in their path.



"Building trust"  

Here's a radical idea.  When you are trying to cultivate an informant whose life is forfeit for cooperating with you, perhaps putting his name into international news as someone you are trying to flip isn't the greatest idea.  

But I'm no professional....


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 May 2010)

Afstan: Battle of the bucks 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/afstan-battle-of-bucks.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Jun 2010)

Afstan: Counterinsurgency 501/Predate update: "Once Upon a Time in Afghanistan" (with photos)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/06/afstan-counterinsurgency-501.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Jun 2010)

Maybe the CF could stay in Afstan post-2011 after all [Matthew Fisher story]
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/06/maybe-cf-could-stay-in-afstan-post-2011.html



> Looks like some politicos may be getting reasonable;
> http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Canada+could+fill+training+roll+Afghanistan+post+2011/3106853/story.html
> a ball with considerable pressure may end up in grumpy Stephen's court--can he do a 180?...
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Jun 2010)

Brits to replace CF at Kandahar after all?  But remember _The Economist's_ musings are not always all that accurate:

The wars over the war
A new government gets to grips with another foreign-policy priority
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16277927



> ...Officials said the Chequers meeting was not a “review” of policy, but only a “seminar” intended to “take stock”. Mr Cameron, it is said, told the gathering that his government was not about to change course, and would support America’s war. On the same day, the prime minister called the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, for what officials say was a “warm” talk about the “peace jirga” being held in Kabul, and about preparations for military operations in Kandahar.
> 
> British qualms about the war—a poll by Com Res in April found that 77% of the British public wanted troops withdrawn from Afghanistan—take second place to Mr Cameron’s desire to forge close ties with the Obama administration. That message will delight Robert Gates, the American defence secretary, who will be visiting London to meet members of the new government before a NATO meeting in Brussels on June 10th and 11th.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Yrys (3 Jun 2010)

MPs say Canadian trainers may stay in Afghanistan after 2011 
, Glob and Mail






Canada may keep a military presence in Afghanistan after its 
combat mission ends next year in order to strengthen the 
country's national security forces, an all-party House of 
Commons committee on the conflict says.

The Canadian Forces is scheduled to end the combat mission 
in July 2011, but there have been persistent calls from NATO 
for Canada to maintain a small non-combat military presence 
that would help in the ongoing — and often frustrating — effort 
to train local soldiers and police officers. It's an idea that the 
Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan is 
willing to explore, said Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae.

“The door is open to a serious discussion in Canada, and then 
between Canada and NATO, about what the future looks like,” 
Mr. Rae said earlier this week as committee members paid a 
visit to Kandahar Airfield. “Increasing the capacity both of the 
Afghan police, the Afghan military and frankly the Afghan judicial 
system has been very much part of what we've been doing and 
I think it's something that needs to continue.”

The committee spent several days touring facilities in Kandahar 
and Kabul, but details of the visit could not be reported until 
Thursday for security reasons.

Tory MP Kevin Sorenson, the chairman of the committee, said 
Canada could play an integral role in strengthening Afghanistan's 
police and military in 2011 and beyond. “We all realize that the 
Afghan police as well as the military are going to have to increase 
capacity if they're going to be able to secure their own country, 
and Canada may have a role in that,” Mr. Sorenson said.

The politically sensitive question of Canada's future role in 
Afghanistan has dogged the federal government since 
Parliament passed a motion two years ago that requires the
Canadian military to cease combat operations by July 2011 
and withdraw from Kandahar. Canada has about 50 RCMP 
and municipal officers and 40 military police personnel 
mentoring Afghan cops at the provincial reconstruction centre 
in Kandahar city. The U.S. recently poured more police mentors
into the base and also operates a police training centre near 
Kandahar Airfield.

Washington's preference would be to have the Canadian battle 
group remain where it is. But a fallback position, as suggested by 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, would be for Canada to play a 
larger role in doing something it already does: training the Afghan 
army.

NDP defence critic Jack Harris said a post-2011 role for Canada is 
in the works, but suggested a military presence was not the only 
option on the table. “All Canadians do not want to see the sacrifice 
that has been made be for naught and we do have obviously a 
considerable amount of humanitarian concerns and institution-
building concerns about Afghanistan,” Mr. Harris said. “Whether 
that involves military or not is another question indeed. There are 
lots of other ways that we can help build institutions.”

The Afghan National Army is considered far more prepared to 
crack down on insecurity than the Afghan National Police, a force
that continues to struggle with a tarnished reputation among local 
villagers after years of corruption, extortion and drug abuse. Many 
officers still lack training and equipment as basic as handcuffs.

During a tour of Kandahar two weeks ago, federal International 
Development Minister Bev Oda said the U.S. has offered to provide 
security for Canadian civilian projects past July 2011, though 
planning is still at a preliminary stage. And the Mounties have 
already started looking at how to continue the police training 
mission next year, RCMP Commissioner William Elliot said in April.

Since Canada's mission in Afghanistan began in 2002, 146 Canadian 
military personnel and two civilians — diplomat Glyn Berry and
journalist Michelle Lang — have been killed. Canada has more than 
2,800 military personnel in Afghanistan, the large majority of whom 
are in Kandahar.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jun 2010)

Interesting what a difference a visit can make in one's viewpoint...


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Jun 2010)

So true.
Once past the rhetoric of "No blood for oil" and other nonsense, it's good that the MPs got over there.  It should help them make informed decisions.  Kudos to them.


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Jun 2010)

CF in Afstan post-2011? PM still "the biggest stumbling block" 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/06/cf-in-afstan-post-2011-pm-still-biggest.html



> ...he's not telling the truth...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Jun 2010)

Even the _Toronto Star_ looking favourably at CF role in Afstan post-2011 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/06/even-toronto-star-looking-favourably-at.html



> Dear Mr Harper,
> 
> Please get with the program...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Jun 2010)

I can't beleive Red Bob Rae and I actually agree on something. Mind you, he'll want to ensure that if the troops have to defend themselves, it will be with the permission of Parliament, and approval would have to be sought 35 days in advance of said contact!!

Kidding....


----------



## GAP (6 Jun 2010)

Maybe not....


----------



## GAP (6 Jun 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Maybe not so unrealistic afterall..... (is what I meant)


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jun 2010)

My sense of the "public" opinion, garnered from the media, including polls, and some bar chat, is that Harper is doing what the "people" want: he is sticking with a 2011 (military) withdrawal date.

It isn't, I think that people are against combat operations or against helping Afghanistan: they are tired of it and they cannot see how we are going to win. We can blame the government, including DND and the CF, for not explaining what we want to do and how we are trying to do it and we can blame the media for not explaining things but my _guesstimate_ is that almost no one in the media and damned few in government, including those at the highest levels (including within DND and the CF) actually understand or *care* about the _what, why and how_ of Afghanistan - how in hell should anyone expect _"ordinary Canadians"_, the good folks _Taliban Jack_ Layton claims to represent, to understand or care.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jun 2010)

Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> I can't beleive Red Bob Rae and I actually agree on something.





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We can blame the government, including DND and the CF, for not explaining what we want to do and how we are trying to do it and we can blame the media for not explaining things but my _guesstimate_ is that almost no one in the media and damned few in government, including those at the highest levels (including within DND and the CF) actually understand or *care* about the _what, why and how_ of Afghanistan.



I gotta say, Bob Rae did a reasonably good job explaining it during a debate in October (see attached from Hansard - longish, but worth the read) - oh wait, it's a long, nuanced bit, so the media can't possible talk about it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jun 2010)

- edited to add CanWest material -

This from CanWest News Service:


> Gen. Walt Natynczyk says the military is obeying "very clear instructions" from the government to withdraw from Afghanistan next year and he won't speculate on whether some troops could or should stay behind.
> 
> The chief of defence staff declined at a news conference Monday to be drawn into a debate sparked last week by overtures from Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae suggesting the official opposition would support a post-2011 training mission for Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...




This from the House of Commons Hansard, with more of the latest official on-paper position - highlights mine:


> Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, Conservative confusion reigns over our mission in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister will not come clean on Canada's role in Afghanistan after the full withdrawal post-2011. His parliamentary secretaries and some Liberals are calling for an extension, instead of finding a path to stability and peace.  I will ask a very simple question. What is the government's plan post-2011 in Afghanistan?
> 
> Hon. Peter Kent (Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas), CPC):  Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no confusion on this side of the House about our position in Afghanistan.  *We have made it eminently clear that this government will respect the parliamentary resolution of 2008 and cease our military mission to Afghanistan in 2011. It will become a civilian and a development mission.*
> 
> ...



*** - Re:  the bit in green - have I missed something substantive re:  suggestions on the mission?  I've seen the MSM hints, suggestions, alleged backroom whispering, but nothing concrete that's grossly different from the main message:  we're outta there (AFG) in 2011, w/a civvy mission left behind.  Or has MSM not included those bits in their coverage of the Committee, given that OTHER thing they've been reporting on instead of the Committee's main job?


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Jun 2010)

From Hansard (Senate) yesterday (highlights mine):


> Canadian Mission in Afghanistan
> 
> Hon. Hugh Segal: Honourable senators, I am rising to express my profound appreciation to the members of the House of Commons' Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, who visited Afghanistan recently and returned late last week. They did so to make their own assessment of the situation on the ground and to see first-hand the remarkable work being done by Canadian Forces and humanitarian, development and diplomatic personnel.
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Jun 2010)

One wonders when most of our major media will really notice the full extent of the US takeover at Kandahar--and note the further new US Army Brigade Combat Team for Kandahar City:

Allies Make Way for U.S. Troop Influx in Afghanistan 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703302604575293880767637918.html 



> KABUL—The influx of American forces into southern Afghanistan is redrawing the coalition's command structure there, giving Washington a decisive say in the unfolding campaign at the expense of allies such as Canada and Britain...
> 
> The change is most notable in Kandahar province, where the campaign's most critical offensive is planned this year. The Canadian military—currently in charge of coalition forces in Afghanistan's second-largest city and in surrounding districts—will *see its battle space shrink mostly to one rural district, Panjway, by the end of the summer, U.S. officials say* [emphasis added]...
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Jun 2010)

From BruceR. at _Flit_:

Sunk-cost fallacy watch
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_06_09.html



> Canada's signature project in Afghanistan, not going well...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (10 Jun 2010)

It seems that even the media are coming around to recognize we need a more coherent debate.  We need to (and should have from the start) identify what our objective is (what do we want to achieve), we need to determine what resources are required to achieve the objective/objectives, and we need something of performance metrics to gauge success and indicate where/when effort & resources should be applied or reduced.  This all starts (should have started) with the political debate too determine our goals/end-state.



> *Embrace debate on Afghan role*
> Editorial
> Winnipeg Free Press
> 07 Jun 2010
> ...





> *We can't abandon Afghanistan*
> Michael den Tandt
> 07 Jun 2010
> 
> ...





> *Canada in Afghanistan Keeping boots on the ground *
> Editorial
> Globe & Mail
> 07 Jun 2010
> ...





> *Just what is it we must see through in Afghanistan? *
> Comment  on: "We have an obligation to see this thing through," Liberal foreign-affairs critic Bob Rae said upon returning from Afghanistan.
> Jeffrey Simpson
> Globe & Mail
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Jun 2010)

A letter sent to the _Globe_ in response to Mr Simpson's piece above and (so far) not published:



> Jeffrey Simpson writes (Just what is it we must see through in Afghanistan? June 9), regarding the proposal that Canadian troops might continue in a training role after 2011, that "Training, to be effective, is not done with a piece of chalk and a board, but involves accompanying troops as they fight, and fighting with them if necessary."
> 
> That is not so.  Basic military training of Afghan recruits, officer training, training in technical skills (including the fledgling Afghan National Army Air Corps) and such things can be done quite effectively--in the Kabul area for example as has been suggested--without going "outside the wire" alongside the Afghans and engaging in combat.  After all that's how such training for our forces is done in Canada.
> 
> I would note that the Canadian Forces already are sending a small number of personal to engage in that sort of training in the Kabul area, as part of the fairly new NATO Training Mission - Afghanistan.



References:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100408/national/afghan_cda_trainers_3 ["Some of the reinforcements will be sent to the NATO training centre in Kabul..."]
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Somnia/3015851/story.html
http://www.ntm-a.com/

And some earlier clarification of the "wire" matter from BruceR. at _Flit_:

Inside the wire
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_06_07.html#006734



> On the Question Period TV show this weekend, Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae said the Liberals supported the deployment of Canadian soldiers as trainers "inside the wire" in Afghanistan.
> http://watch.ctv.ca/news/ctvs-question-period/june-6/#clip310245
> 
> That sounds easier than it is. Afghan police and soldiers are trained on their own bases, obviously, but those are not "inside" coalition military facilities in any real sense. Afghans of any kind aren't normally allowed free run of ISAF military facilities, so the two have to remain physically distinct. So really what you're talking about is "inside the Afghan wire," at least part of the time: in other words, either cohabiting with Afghans, or failing that, "commuting" from a nearby ISAF base.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Jun 2010)

Several forward (and backward) looking pieces:

Karzai Is Said to Doubt West Can Defeat Taliban (by Dexter Filkins)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/world/asia/12karzai.html?hp



> KABUL, Afghanistan — Two senior Afghan officials were showing President Hamid Karzai  the evidence of the spectacular rocket attack on a nationwide peace conference earlier this month when Mr. Karzai told them that he believed the Taliban were not responsible.
> 
> “The president did not show any interest in the evidence — none — he treated it like a piece of dirt,” said Amrullah Saleh, then the director of the Afghan intelligence service.
> 
> ...



They must know our mission is doomed
Cameron and Clegg have made a calculation: sacrifice more soldiers in Afghanistan to keep on side with the US (by Matthew Paris, usual copyright disclaimer)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article7148482.ece



> David Cameron has picked a fine time to make his Afghan debut. Convoy torched; helicopter shot down; the two security advisers to President Karzai whom the West most trusts resigned; and 29 Nato and British servicemen killed in nine days.
> 
> The photograph in Thursday’s Times of a burnt-out convoy of Nato supply trucks bound for Afghanistan took me back: not to Afghanistan, but to an earlier visit and another place.
> 
> ...



Plus two views (reflecting a rather different Weltanschauung from ours, time to look inside some G-20 heads as well as G-7?) from former senior Indian civil servants, the first a former deputy minister of foreign affairs, the second an assistan secretary to the cabinet (in our terms):  

Afghanistan: the march of folly (though how he expects a UN peackeeping force to work beats me, that's in effect what ISAF originally was when confined to the Kabul area)  
http://beta.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article453206.ece?homepage=true  

AFGHANISTAN: INDIAN OPTIONS
http://ramansterrorismanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/06/afghanistan-indian-options.html  

Via Moby Media Updates:  
http://mobygroup.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=8&id=35&Itemid=50  

Mark  
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Jun 2010)

A post at _Unambiguously Ambidextrous_:

Today’s AfPak reading
http://unambig.com/todays-afpak-reading/



> Not exactly a pretty picture (but then at this point the major media are looking for the worst; nonetheless there are, er, unencouraging things–how’s that for being UA?)..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Jun 2010)

Post with video link of Terry Glavin on CTV News Channel, and quite a bit more:

Reasons why Afstan is still a good war
http://unambig.com/reasons-why-afstan-is-still-a-good-war/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (15 Jun 2010)

After Bob Rae cutting his feet from under him, this is definitely anticlimatic......


Canadian trainers should stay in Afghanistan past 2011: Ignatieff
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 1:49 PM Jane Taber 
Article Link

Michael Ignatieff wants Canada to stay in Afghanistan when the combat mission ends to train police and military personnel.

The Liberal Leader is proposing the creation of an institute in Kabul, much like the Royal Military College in Kingston. He is suggesting that Canadians remain for three years, cautioning that the commitment cannot be open-ended.

Mr. Ignatieff outlined his vision in a speech to the National Forum in Toronto on Tuesday. This is the most definitive he has been so far as to what he sees as Canada’s contribution after the military mission ends in July, 2011.

This is all part of the Liberal’s foreign-policy platform, which Mr. Ignatieff is strategically releasing on the eve of the G8 and G20 summits.

And the Liberal Leader was highly critical of the Harper government’s foreign-policy position in Afghanistan, accusing the Prime Minister of simply walking away from the country and pretending the war never happened.

Once again, Mr. Ignatieff called for a national debate about the role, risks of and resources for such a mission.

He said training a cadre of officers was a mission that Canadians would be good at, noting that some of the best military trainers are in the country. As well, this is a mission, he said, that does not involve combat. 
More on link


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Jun 2010)

Good grief!  How crushingly, er, academic.  Just what the ANA needs right now.  How about just some ordinary staff training, basic training, technical training (including for the ANA Air Corps as we are now doing), etc. in the Kabul area? 

More here:

CF and Afstan: Judicious Jeffrey Simpson exceeds his pay grade
http://unambig.com/cf-and-afstan-judicious-jeffrey-simpson-exceeds-his-pay-grade/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jun 2010)

A potential find in Afghanistan has the prospects of:

a) providing the people of Afghanistan with economic development and wealth, and,

b) giving the "progressive movement" another meme to oppose the war.

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/lefts-reaction-to-afghanistans-new.html



> *The Left's Reaction to Afghanistan's New Mineral Riches‎*
> 
> Okay, NYT's got what's apparently a big deal, "U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan." I'm just now checking Memeorandum, and boy folks are excited. The Times' story is sensational. The mineral find is estimated at $1 trillion, and "Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world..."
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jun 2010)

More on Iggy's latest utterances, short and sweet from Brian Platt:


> Iggy Grows a Pair



And a bit more from the Flit blog here


> For what it's worth, a larger Canadian military presence in the ANA training facilities in the Kabul area (the Kabul Military Training Centre, the National Military Academy, and the Command and General Staff College, the latter two soon to be merged into the National Defense University) would seem consistent with prior House of Commons resolutions, is probably sustainable for a long period by the army, would probably help the Americans by allowing them to reallocate training resources elsewhere, would probably do a lot of good for the Afghan army, and doesn't run into many of the problems with operational mentoring without one's own troops on the ground that have been mentioned before. Not seeing the downside here.


----------



## McG (16 Jun 2010)

> *Sticking to script on Afghanistan ridiculous stance*
> Saskatoon
> The StarPhoenix
> 11 June 2010
> ...


----------



## GAP (16 Jun 2010)

If the Liberals believe in their stance so much, why don't they put a motion forward?..........


oh, they want the Conservatives to do it.....wonder why?


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Jun 2010)

Post by Terry Glavin:

Ignatieff: Time for a "frank, national conversation" about Afghanistan. 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/06/ignatieff-time-for-frank-national.html



> Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is finally taking the brave lead of Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae ( "We have an obligation to see this thing through . . . . The door is open to serious discussion in Canada and between Canada and NATO about what the future looks like"), for which Rae has been so churlishly traduced. Ignatieff is calling for a "frank national conversation" about Canada in Afghanistan post-2011.
> 
> This is good. This is also the view of many Conservative MPs, although it is not the view from the Prime Minister's office, where Stephen Harper sits glumly, wanting no debate about it, and wanting shut of the entire business...
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (16 Jun 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> If the Liberals believe in their stance so much, why don't they put a motion forward?..........


It looks like they are starting to do just that.
A little last second, but it is about time this political level discussion is happening.  Hopefully this time will arrive at concrete determinations of an end-state (as opposed to arbitraty end-date).


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jun 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> It looks like they are starting to do just that.
> A little last second, but it is about time this political level discussion is happening.  Hopefully this time will arrive at concrete determinations of an end-state (as opposed to arbitraty end-date).


That, or a clear, "we're not going to talk about this anymore" statement/move from the government that end of 2011 is end of 2011.  What turns my crank is the continued back-and-forth-with-information-tidbits instead of either, "yes, the right thing to do is to continue helping AFG past 2011" or "yes, the right thing to do is to wrap up now that we've done our share".  One, or the other, clearly, PLEASE.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jun 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And a bit more from the Flit blog here
> 
> 
> > For what it's worth, a larger Canadian military presence in the ANA training facilities in the Kabul area (the Kabul Military Training Centre, the National Military Academy, and the Command and General Staff College, the latter two soon to be merged into the National Defense University) would seem consistent with prior House of Commons resolutions, is probably sustainable for a long period by the army, would probably help the Americans by allowing them to reallocate training resources elsewhere, would probably do a lot of good for the Afghan army, and doesn't run into many of the problems with operational mentoring without one's own troops on the ground that have been mentioned before. Not seeing the downside here.



Further to this, but in a more civilian vein, look what Canada just announced:


> Today, Deputy Interior Minister General Haidar Basir, Germany’s Ambassador to Afghanistan Werner H. Lauk, and Canada`s Chargé d’Affaires Cindy Termorshuizen inaugurated the new Border Police Faculty at the National Police Academy in Kabul. The Border Police Faculty will provide training for 400 police students and 50 police trainers.
> Canada`s Chargé d’Affaires Cindy Termorshuizen
> Government of Canada
> 
> ...



And in other non-military news:


> At a ceremony held today at Camp Nathan Smith, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Assistant Commissioner David Critchley officially assumed the role of the new Commander of the Canadian Civilian Police Mission in Afghanistan, succeeding Assistant Commissioner Graham Muir who has held the position since June 2009.
> 
> Assistant Commissioner Critchley assumed his new role during a transfer of command ceremony held today at Camp Nathan Smith, home to the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team and the majority of Canada’s civilian police.
> 
> “Policing is a priority focus for Canada because a credible and professional Afghan National Police is key to fostering stability, making people and communities feel more secure and enhancing the rule of law in Afghanistan,” said Canada’s Ambassador to Afghanistan, William Crosbie ....



Here's ANOTHER way for Canada to keep helping Afghanistan (it's not military, even if it involves keeping staff in Kandahar, so it's in line with the March 2008 motion).

Do the right thing by staying to help, or explain clearly why it's the right thing to leave.


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Jun 2010)

Start of a post at _Unambiguously Ambidextrous_:

George Will needs more Canada
http://unambig.com/george-will-needs-more-canada/



> Just in case you thought the world’s opinion movers and shakers keep an eagle eye  on Canada...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jun 2010)

This from the Canadian Press:


> Canadian troops should stay to train the fledgling Afghan army beyond the official pullout next year, says an outspoken former general.
> 
> And retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie told a House of Commons committee that rumblings from the Liberals make him hopeful a training assignment in Kabul — where Canadian troops give classroom instruction to Afghan soldiers — will come about.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dog Walker (18 Jun 2010)

Women's rights will be the first casualty of surrender in Afghanistan
By Eva Sajoo, Special to the Sun June 18, 2010
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Women+rights+will+first+casualty+surrender+Afghanistan/3169695/story.html

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is eager to close the door on Canada's mission in Afghanistan next year -- and so are many Canadians. For some there is a sense of hopelessness about an intractable civil war that has claimed too many Canadian lives; others insist our presence there is a form of imperialism. Matters aren't helped by recent headlines about Afghan President Hamid Karzai seemingly wanting to talk to the Taliban at any cost, even if it means sacrificing gains Canadians have died for in his country since late 2001.

 Yet walking out of the United Nations-mandated NATO force now would put us squarely on the side of the Taliban and their friends, inside and outside of Afghanistan. It means allowing the daily headlines about violence and death to hide what ordinary Afghans, with the help of Canadians, have begun to accomplish in so much of that country: the making of civil society. Access to schools, hospitals and basic public services is the bread and butter of democratic life. And no one can claim to believe that half the population of Afghanistan -- its women -- had any prospect of that under the Taliban.
"Women's Progress Is Human Progress" was the headline of a recent piece for the Globe and Mail by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In this claim, she was echoing the conviction of economists as well as human rights organizations that the status of women is a vital measure of political stability.
Sally Armstrong, a well-known Canadian journalist and author, made a similar point on May 30 in Surrey, at a fundraising event for Afghan women -- whose plight reminded her of women in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where sexual violence is the worst in the world. A country with incredibly fertile soil, its food production has dropped by 70 per cent since the beginning of its conflict in 1996, rendering the population dependent on food aid. Armstrong points out that farmers are primarily women, who have had to flee to the mountains from the systematic and horrific attacks on them.
The link between the well-being of women and that of their societies is intuitive, yet advocacy for women's rights often faces unexpected barriers. Many Canadians will remember when police were reluctant to intervene in incidents of domestic violence because what took place there at home was "private." Similar arguments surface today when we raise our voices about violence against women in other countries. We are told that violations of women's rights are part of someone else's culture, and that we have no business interfering. We should just mind our own affairs.
In fact, it is those of us inclined to believe that human rights are a Western invention who are most vulnerable to this argument. If the right to food and dignity is as cultural as casual Fridays at the office, it may indeed seem offensive to criticize others for alternative practices. But this is like suggesting that the need to eat is a peculiarly Canadian characteristic. The right to equal treatment, education, and freedom from violence are not specific to one culture. They are universal entitlements that are valued as ardently among Afghan women as our own.
Canada made a promise to Afghanistan in 2001. Under the Bonn Agreement, we pledged to "promote national reconciliation, lasting peace, stability, and respect for human rights."
That includes women's rights, often the easiest to sacrifice for "peace." At extraordinary risk to themselves, Afghan women seized on these promises, speaking out and acting on their rights on the basis of our assurances the country would not return to the practices enforced by the Taliban. Security, provided by military and police forces we provide and support, is what makes basic functions such as education and work possible for Afghan girls and women. There is little enough of that now. Fleeing in 2011 would be an ignominious betrayal.
Ultimately, this is about our own values. Do we take seriously the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as "human rights" above all else?
If not, then what exactly was this country defending in two world wars -- and would we have the moral courage to stand for anything again?
Eva Sajoo holds a master's degree in international development and education. She is a member of the Vancouver chapter of Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan. For more information visit www.cw4wafghan.ca


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Jun 2010)

Be rather embarrassing if the Dutch stayed on in a training role and we...
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE65G1VN.htm



> NATO renewed a call on the Netherlands on Thursday [June 17] to keep troops in Afghanistan after a Dutch parliamentary election last week held to replace a government that collapsed over the troop mission.
> 
> The Dutch Labour party left the Dutch cabinet in February because it did not want the mission in the Afghan province of Uruzgan to continue beyond August. A new government is being formed after a parliamentary election held last week.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Jun 2010)

Excellent article in the _NY Times Magazine_ (LGEN Leslie gets a mention near the end, note the criticism of the US Army Stryker BCT--usual copyright disclaimer):

Afghanistan’s Civic War
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/magazine/20Afghanistan-t.html?ref=magazine



> Lt. Col. Guy Jones, commander of the 82nd Airborne Division’s Second Battalion, 508th Parachute Infantry, is on his fourth tour of Afghanistan. The first time around, in June 2002, when he was a 31-year-old company commander, his job was to find Osama bin Laden. He still has happy memories of working alongside Gul Agha Shirzai, the local strongman in Kandahar, who may have been loathed by the people but could be counted on to deliver American war materiel to anywhere in the region for only $5,000 a truckload.
> 
> Now Colonel Jones has returned to the region to fight a very different war. Based in the Arghandab District, just north of Kandahar, he and his troops are at the epicenter of the looming American showdown with the Taliban. This time, he cannot win by making common cause with warlords. He can’t even win by shooting people. “I almost never do kinetic operations,” he said to me one night in April, using military talk for classic operations. We were sitting in an office in the Arghandab District Center — the seat of local government rather than of military operations. Just then his troops were seeking to clear insurgents from some villages to the north. “How do you separate the enemy from the people?” asked Jones, a natural-born pedagogue much given to the rhetorical question. “Well, one way is I can go out and just hang out there. Eventually they’ll get so frustrated that they’ll just leave. And then I know who to look for.”
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jun 2010)

....according to the _Toronto Sun_/QMI (highlights mine):


> OTTAWA - The Conservative government is open to a Liberal pitch to keep troops in Afghanistan post-2011, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Monday.
> 
> Last week, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Canada should end its combat role as scheduled, but deploy soldiers in a safer region like Kabul training Afghanistan's police and military. MacKay said there is "great interest" in that proposal - but hinted the ball is in the opposition’s court as the government is bound by an existing motion to pull out next year.
> 
> "I'm very interested. I know the Prime Minister has expressed interest in what Mr. Ignatieff said. But *the parliamentary motion is very clear* so that is where we are today," he said ....  ""Throughout this mission there have been changes - we've seen extensions in the past. But *that motion is rock solid in the mind of the government*" ....


Said motion is clear about leaving _KANDAHAR_, not _AFGHANISTAN_.  I'll believe it when I hear it from the PM, clearly.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Jun 2010)

Why must the government continue to be so economical about the truth of the 2008 Commons' (*not Parliamentary*) motion as to be mendacious?

It's also interesting that the Conservatives after becoming the government said they would seek Commons' approval of foreign troop deployments generally--but did not do so in the case of the major, if fairly brief, mission to Haiti.

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Jun 2010)

More:

So staying in Afstan’s about “the Canadian brand”, eh?/Update: St Steve Staples wants different Canadian brand now
http://unambig.com/so-staying-in-afstans-about-the-canadian-brand-eh/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jun 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Why must the government continue to be so economical about the truth of the 2008 Commons' (*not Parliamentary*) motion as to be mendacious?


And why isn't MSM calling the government on it?

In other news, an interim report from a committee of senators says "stay & train" ....:


> The country's chamber of sober second thought says Ottawa should think twice about leaving Afghanistan lock, stock and barrel next year.
> 
> In an interim report tabled Tuesday, the Senate's security and defence committee recommends the Canadian military remain in the war-wasted nation to train the Afghan army and police beyond the deadline set by Parliament ....


(Here's the report.)

....while the Defence Minister says armed UAVs are not being ruled out as a future option:


> Defence Minister Peter MacKay has left the door open to arming Canada's reconnaissance drones in Afghanistan, even though the military has written off the idea.
> 
> Slapping munitions on the CU-170 Herons, which operate out of Kandahar Airfield, has been considered almost from the moment the leased unmanned aircraft arrived in theatre. The prop-driven planes, operated by remote control, are currently used only for surveillance and were acquired as a result of the Manley commission into the Afghan mission.
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Jun 2010)

Two posts by BruceR. at _Flit_ that are really worth reading:

Meanwhile, back in Afg 2: the Good Guys of Gizab
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_06_22.html#006744



> The WashPost has a "ray of light" piece on Afghanistan.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/20/AR2010062003479.html?hpid=topnews
> 
> Gizab, a valley in Daikundi province (although that is disputed) with a majority Pashtun population (also disputed), is apparently steadfastly anti-Taliban. Good for them. People are wondering how to replicate that success, which is a good discussion. Three points.
> ...



Meanwhile, back in Afg 3: Dahla update
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_06_22.html#006745

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Jun 2010)

For what it’s worth (politically): Continuing CF Afghan role post-2011
http://unambig.com/for-what-its-worth-politically-continuing-cf-afghan-role-post-2011/



> Somehow I doubt this Senate committee (now with a Conservative majority and chair) report, in itself, will have much impact.  Hope I’m wrong, it may just push the discussion along...
> 
> *Update:*  Terry Glavin issues a call to, er, arms:
> http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/06/finally-leadership-thank-you-senator.html
> ...



Meanwhile, Tom Friedman of the _NY Times_ explains why it’s all useless anyway:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/opinion/23friedman.html?ref=todayspaper

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (23 Jun 2010)

> *Afghans need Canucks to stay: study*
> Kathleen Harris
> The Edmonton Sun
> 23 June 2010
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Jun 2010)

More Pak paranoia:

India likely to get role in Afghan military affairs
http://pakistanpal.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/india-likely-to-get-role-in-afghan-military-affairs/



> *ISLAMABAD – The ongoing row between the NATO forces and allied European countries regarding provisions of training for Afghan National Army is paving way for Indian ‘legalised’ presence in Afghanistan*...
> 
> The target of International Security Assistance Force to train 134,000 and 171,600 troops of Afghan National Army by October 2010 and 2011 respectively seems to be a far-fetched notion. Likewise, training 80,000 Afghan policemen this year and those of over 100,000 in 2011, as decided in London Conference on Afghanistan, also sounds nothing more than a far cry.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Jun 2010)

Hell yes, we're gonna go:

Lawrence Cannon isn’t much for dancing
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/06/23/lawrence-cannon-isnt-much-for-dancing/



> In an interview with CTV this evening [June 22], the Foreign Affairs Minister was fairly dismissive of the Liberal proposal for a post-2011 mandate in Afghanistan and the Defence Minister’s reported “interest” in said proposal. The following is from the end of the conversation.
> 
> Tom Clark. Would training the Afghan army in a non-combat role be considered development aide?
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Jun 2010)

More on the Senate Committee report on post-2011 possibilities:

Afstan: Not rounding up some usual suspects
http://unambig.com/afstan-not-rounding-up-some-usual-suspects/

Take a look at the whole post by Brian Platt.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jun 2010)

ROEs and the law of unintended consequences:

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2010/06/28/the-side-effects-of-the-afghanistan-rules-of-engagement/



> *The Side Effects of the Afghanistan Rules of Engagement*
> BY HERSCHEL SMITH
> 20 hours, 24 minutes ago
> From Strategy Page;
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jun 2010)

This from the Canadian Press, shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the _Copyright  Act_:


> When talk in Ottawa's halls of power turns to Afghanistan, he's known as the immovable object.
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper, once considered a hawk in the mould of George W. Bush, appears more and more like a dove as Canada enters what could be its last summer of war in southwest Asia.
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Jun 2010)

A real must-read  from BruceR. at _Flit_ on Afghan training, er, deficiencies:

Today’s essential Afghan reading: the SIGAR report
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_06_30.html#006748



> The SIGAR report
> http://www.sigar.mil/Seriousflawsinsystem.asp
> on the problems with the ANSF Capability Milestone (CM) system is out, and worth a read. The clear implication is that prior to the arrival of Gen McChrystal and his team, ANSF mentoring had really been spinning its wheels.
> 
> ...



Lots more worth the look.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Jul 2010)

Further to this post,

"The final countdown to end of Afghan mission"
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-950578.html#msg950578

things don't look good for our government listening:

[yellow]Afghanistan asks Canada to extend its military mission[/color]
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Afghanistan+asks+Canada+extend+military+mission/3223595/story.html



> Afghans will die if Canada does not play a part in the Afghanistan recovery after the planned military withdrawal in July 2011, Kabul's man in Ottawa said Wednesday.
> 
> But the commander of all Canadian troops overseas said the government has provided no indication of any such intentions beyond next summer's deadline.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Jul 2010)

Further to above post:

Who cares about the Afghan government? And strong horses?
http://unambig.com/who-cares-about-the-afghan-government-and-strong-horses/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Jul 2010)

Senator Pam Wallin speaking to American crowds:


> Speaking to about 200 people on hand at the Penrose House on Thursday for a Canada Day celebration, Canadian Sen. Pamela Wallin (pictured left) expressed dismay with the decision to end Canada's military participation in the Afghanistan conflict.
> 
> "I hope we can find some flexibility in the Canadian approach," Wallin said. "Our job is not done. That debate continues at home. We do have to continue in some way to make our contribution." ....


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Jul 2010)

Loose lips sink generals, or…(plus hitting Canada for six)
http://unambig.com/loose-lips-sink-generals-or/



> …you just can’t win with the Gray Lady...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Jul 2010)

A way of looking at things that would be most unusual in many Canadian circles--_Realpolitik_: do it, and do it right:

Diggers need freedom to win freedom 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/diggers-need-freedom-to-win-freedom/story-e6frg6zo-1225888205457



> JULIA Gillard's elevation to the office of Prime Minister offers an opportunity to correct both the Rudd and Howard governments' feckless policy towards engagement in Afghanistan. Conveniently, the change in leadership in Canberra coincides with a change of command and a review of strategy in Afghanistan.
> 
> Australia has about 1550 soldiers in Afghanistan, mostly in Oruzgan province. The government's line on why we're there is that a Taliban victory and the prospect of Afghanistan again being used as a safe haven for terrorists would pose a threat to Australia. This is true: failure in Afghanistan would be a fillip for terrorist groups that have attacked Australians directly and undermine the stability of the region on which our security and prosperity depends. But that's not the most important reason why Australia is there.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Jul 2010)

And from BruceR. at _Flit_ (his first link well worth the read):

Today's essential Afghan reading: Bing West



> Reviewing Kilcullen:
> http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=23564
> 
> _Because they are partnered with our troops, Afghan soldiers are copying our rules of engagement and risk-avoidance procedures. Since they wear our heavy armor, they too cannot pursue the light and mobile Taliban forces. When the enemy initiates contact, the Afghan soldiers are trained to wait alongside our troops until our attack helicopters force the Taliban to flee. The Afghan soldiers will not be able to fight that way as U.S. resources are reduced. The Afghan security forces simply cannot take over the fight anytime soon._
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Jul 2010)

Then there are the wimpy Kiwis (as an Aussie sees it):

NZ puts nation first, war second
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/nz-puts-nation-first-war-second-20100705-zxiq.html?rand=1278337537867



> New Zealand may be a nation of warriors when it comes to football codes. But such courage does not extend to elected politicians in Wellington, whether they be conservatives or social democrats.
> 
> Last week John Key, New Zealand's National Party Prime Minister, revealed he had rejected a request from Kevin Rudd - made in about mid-May - to assist the Australian Defence Force contingent in Afghanistan. Australia has some 1500 personnel within Afghanistan as part of Operation Slipper. Rudd asked Key for between 20 and 50 troops to assist Australian operations in the Oruzgan province in southern Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Jul 2010)

Two more from BruceR.:

Today's essential Afghan reading: Tim Lynch
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_07_06.html#006751



> More of this please:
> http://freerangeinternational.com/blog/?p=3289
> ...
> Look, it's real simple: you don't need to "arm the tribes." You don't need to train the Afghans to fight our way, either. You just need to train those willing to fight for the central government enough to be able to explain what they need from us, and then train a (much smaller) number of our soldiers to fight alongside them, in a manner that doesn't get in their way, bringing all of our nifty technological enablers along to ensure a victory. And that's a lot simpler challenge... if only because more of ours can read the manual, be it 3-24 or Seven Pillars. It worked in 2001, and it can work again. We really seem to be overthinking this thing.



Today's essential Afghan reading: Bernard Finel
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_07_06.html#006750



> A must-read for would-be nation builders:
> http://www.bernardfinel.com/?p=1402
> 
> ...In growing the security forces so large, and attempting to extend the central government's reach, we have created a state so entirely dependent on cash transfers from foreign countries to continue that it is clearly unsustainable, even to its strongest supporters among its own people. The Afghan GDP will never, ever rise to the point where it can pay the army we've created for them at the wage levels we've set. Because it is clear the good times cannot last, it is only rational for the key players to be focussed on shorter-term profit-taking...



Now I’ve been very critical of our government for its unwillingness to continue any CF mission in Afstan post-2011, even a non-combat one training the ANA. 
http://unambig.com/afstan-hell-yes-were-gonna-go/
But if training a seemingly ever-larger ANA is not the right way to go, then one might argue the government is making the correct decision.

Quite so. Except that the government has not made any case for its complete withdrawal position based on the argument that such training is not in fact what is needed. In fact I do not think the government has made any argument about its decision related–one way or another–to things military in Afstan. It’s been simply: “Out we go cause Parliament said so.”

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Jul 2010)

As for civilian deaths:

Civilian Casualties Create New Enemies, Study Confirms
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07/civilian-casualties-create-new-enemies-study-confirms/



> Yes, we needed economists to tell us this. A new working paper
> http://papers.nber.org/papers/w16152#fromrss
> published by the National Bureau of Economic Research finds “strong evidence for a revenge effect” when examining the relationship between civilian casualties caused by the U.S.-led military coalition in Afghanistan and radicalization after such incidents occur. The paper even estimates of how many insurgent attacks to expect after each civilian death. Those findings, however intuitive, might resolve an internal military debate about the counter-productivity of civilian casualties — and possibly fuel calls for withdrawal.
> 
> ...



Via _Milnews.ca_:
http://milnewstbay.pbworks.com/CANinKandahar

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jul 2010)

Thanks for the mention.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with this conclusion:


> Even if the insurgents possess a “total disregard for human life and the Afghan people,” as an ISAF press release reacting to this weekend’s insurgent bombings in Herat put it, Afghans effectively would rather be killed by other Afghans than foreigners.


I've wondered why there's rabid protests when ISAF is responsible for some civcas, and nothing when the Taliban is responsible for way more, too.  I don't know if I'd declare a "preference of who kills me" among Afghans, though.

One alternative guess:  this could be an indicator re:  who scares Afghans the most when it comes to demanding justice without fear of retribution.

Another:  this could also indicate who Afghans think will be around longer to either protect or kill them, based on history.


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Jul 2010)

Length piece in _Spiegel Online_:

Afghanistan and the West
The Difficult Relationship between Democracy and War
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,704884,00.html



> _Many Germans would like to see Chancellor Angela Merkel withdraw the country's troops from Afghanistan. But should she listen? There are many good reasons for the West to be involved in the war against the Taliban, but public opinion may not be listening._
> ...
> Nowadays, democracy is the form of government that struggles the most with war. This is even true of the United States, where governments are often quick to deploy troops, whereas the public quickly becomes skeptical. This is not a flaw; war always involves the killing and mutilation of human beings and scruples are absolutely necessary. Of all democracies, it is perhaps Germany that struggles the most with war -- and that too is understandable. Germany started two world wars, the second of which was total war, an orgy of destruction and self-destruction. The phrase "No more wars," one of the guiding principles of modern-day Germany, is an obvious consequence of the country's history.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Jul 2010)

BruceR. at _Flit_:

Today's essential Afghan reading: Ethan Kapstein
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_07_08.html#006753



> Canadian and other soldiers who see precious little progress in Kandahar should keep in mind (as I always tried to do) that in Afghanistan, the "flypaper theory" really does work. We fought the bad guys in the south and east so that the north and west (Kabul, Mazar, Herat) could prosper, could make gains in human freedom, could watch their kids grow up... because ultimately what will finally delegitimate the Taliban in Afghan eyes will be when people in non-Taliban areas are visibly more prosperous. Ethan Kapstein documents the peaceful half of the country:
> http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/08/letter_from_afghanistan_some_bright_spots_and_how_to_encourage_them
> 
> _Nor is all this growth dependent on foreign aid. In fact, the regions of the country that are enjoying the most economic activity-like Herat and Balkh (where Mazar is located)-are probably those where the least aid has gone on a per capita basis. In both these provinces, for example, strong governors have made security a priority, giving entrepreneurs the breathing space to exploit existing business opportunities._
> ...



Meanwhile, Brian Platt gets pretty impassioned at _The Canada – Afghanistan Blog_:

Idiocy From The Right
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/2010/07/idiocy-from-right.html



> …
> See the theme here, shared with Steyn? What a smashing victory we scored–both in Iraq and Afghanistan–in the first few months. If only we had left then and there, we could have left with our heads held high.
> 
> The part they don’t add is: screw the people who live in these countries, and screw what happens afterward. Just so long as the terr’ists don’t take over again, we’re happy.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Jul 2010)

USMC General James Mattis (to be new head of US Central Command)...

Kind of reminds me of Rick Hillier
http://unambig.com/kind-of-reminds-me-of-rick-hillier/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (9 Jul 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> For the addition of a handful of soldiers and the discarding of two self-defeating restrictions, Australia would get enormously more bang for its buck. Taking command in Oruzgan, allowing trainers to fight with the Afghan brigade they're training and unchaining the special forces would show allies and the world that under Julia Gillard Australia had rediscovered its, er, backbone.





			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Last week John Key, New Zealand's National Party Prime Minister, revealed he had rejected a request from Kevin Rudd - made in about mid-May - to assist the Australian Defence Force contingent in Afghanistan. Australia has some 1500 personnel within Afghanistan as part of Operation Slipper. Rudd asked Key for between 20 and 50 troops to assist Australian operations in the Oruzgan province in southern Afghanistan.


Well, this raises an interesting option to respect the motion to end the combat mission in Kandahar -> move to Oruzgan.
We could revive the 1950's Commonwealth Brigade of the Korean War.  Canada, Austrailia and New Zealand (we will pressure them into the 50 guys) could run with Oruzgan ... we wouldn't even have to invite the Brits to the team this time (they are probably doing enough lifting of thier own now anyway).


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Jul 2010)

Egregious Eric and...

The mythical nine-year Afghan war--and the mythical US invasion
http://unambig.com/the-mythical-nine-year-afghan-war/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Jul 2010)

Ricks:

All security is local -- esp. in Afghanistan
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/15/all_security_is_local_esp_in_afghanistan



> The MFKAM (media formerly known as mainstream) is aflutter over Petraeus moving toward local self-defense councils. And rightly so. This is big stuff.
> 
> I see two things going on here.
> 
> ...



BruceR.:

Today's essential Afghan reading: Condra, et al.
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_07_13.html#006756



> An already much-commented on paper on the effect of civilian casualties on the Afghan insurgency...



Today's essential Afghan counterpoint: Inkspots vs Tim Lynch
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_07_13.html#006757



> Two respected Afghan bloggers, talking past each other. MK at the Inkspots, arguing for focussing on improving local justice systems instead of services...



Today's essential Afghan reading: Forsberg and Kagan
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_07_15.html#006758



> Carl Forsberg and the Kagans sort out the tangle of armed Afghans working in and around Kandahar, and how the Karzai clan continues to tighten their grip independent of official government forces in the area...



Mark
Ottawa

*Update:* Plus from Brian Platt at _The Canada – Afghanistan Blog_:

Afghanistan’s Wars
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/2010/07/afghanistans-wars.html


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Jul 2010)

Will the prime minister listen to an Afghan lady?/”Panjwaii Tim”/Kinetic Update
http://unambig.com/will-the-prime-minister-listen-to-an-afghan-ladypanjwaii-tim/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jul 2010)

Could this be how the Canadians do it?  

"Dutch hand over security of Chora  Valley" (AUS DoD):
Having worked closely with Australian forces during the past four years, the Netherlands officially passed command of a patrol base in the Chora Valley, Uruzgan Province, to the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Combined Team-Uruzgan (CT-U) last week.

The Dutch Government decided in December 2007 that its forces would be drawn down progressively from Uruzgan in 2010, and this handover of command in Chora signals the beginning of transition to a new phase of coalition operations in the region.

Under the new multinational construct ‘Combined Team-Uruzgan’ Australia will work closely with our US ally, Afghan forces and other International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) partners, including Singapore and Slovakia, to continue to build security and development in Uruzgan Province.

Chief of Joint Operations, Lieutenant General Mark Evans, says the Australian soldiers will proudly build on the achievements of the Dutch in the district.

“The people of Chora have seen considerable progress in the past four years,” Lieutenant General Evans said.

“The Dutch soldiers should rightfully take pride in their achievements.

“Their approach has complemented our own which has delivered very positive outcomes for the local Afghans.”

“Australia has been their partner from the beginning and we will now, along with the Afghan Army and our new US partners, continue this vital mission in Chora.”

Dutch Commander Brigadier Kees van den Heuvel spoke of the significance of Chora Valley.

“Three years ago this company was here and because of the strategic importance of Chora, the Netherlands decided to stay and military history was written,” Brigadier van den Heuvel said.

Captain Peter Allan of the 1st Mentoring Task Force paid tribute to the Dutch soldiers who had fallen in the Chora Valley.

“Chora is a place where the Dutch have suffered casualties but their sacrifice was not in vain – their battlefield is now our battlefield and be assured their memory will be honoured.”

Continuing Australian and Afghan security force operations are focused on improving the lives of the local people by setting the security conditions for enhanced development in the areas of health, education, and public works. 

ADF mentoring of the ANA, particularly the focus on tactical battlefield skills, leadership and effective command and control, reinforces ISAF’s commitment to assisting the ANSF to take responsibility for the security of Afghanistan ....


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Jul 2010)

The case against the current approach, by Richard Haass (it seems to me that in the end the whole Afstan matter will boil down to things Pak/India, usual copyright disclaimer):

We’re Not Winning. It’s Not Worth It.
Here’s how to draw down in Afghanistan.
http://www.newswek.net/2010/07/18/we-re-not-winning-it-s-not-worth-it.html?from=rss



> ...The Afghan government shows little sign of being prepared to deliver either clean administration or effective security at the local level. While a small number of Taliban might choose to “reintegrate”—i.e., opt out of the fight—the vast majority will not. And why should they? *The Taliban are resilient and enjoy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, whose government tends to view the militants as an instrument for influencing Afghanistan’s future (something Pakistan cares a great deal about, given its fear of Indian designs there* [emphasis added])...
> There are, however, other options. One is reconciliation, a fancy word for negotiating a ceasefire with those Taliban leaders willing to stop fighting in exchange for the chance to join Afghanistan’s government. It is impossible, though, to be confident that many Taliban leaders would be prepared to reconcile; they might decide that time is on their side if they only wait and fight. Nor is it likely that the terms they would accept would in turn be acceptable to many Afghans, who remember all too well what it was like to live under the Taliban. A national-unity government is farfetched.
> 
> One new idea put forward by Robert Blackwill, a former U.S. ambassador to India, is for a de facto partition of Afghanistan. Under this approach, the United States would accept Taliban control of the Pashtun-dominated south so long as the Taliban did not welcome back Al Qaeda and did not seek to undermine stability in non-Pashtun areas of the country. If the Taliban violated these rules, the United States would attack them with bombers, drones, and Special Forces. U.S. economic and military support would continue to flow to non-Pashtun Afghans in the north and west of the country.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Jul 2010)

Kukris rule/Taliban approach Update
http://unambig.com/kukris-rule/







Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jul 2010)

I read the post about the Ghurkas......well done to them!

I have heard the Taliban will never....head....the government.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jul 2010)

This from the National Post/Postmedia chain, highlights mine:


> Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon told more than 40 other foreign ministers Tuesday in Kabul that *a "key" Canadian goal is "a self-sufficient Afghan army and police force" so that Afghanistan could take the security lead in military operations by 2014.*
> 
> But Cannon, who later spoke by telephone to reporters in Kandahar from the Kandahar International Conference on Afghanistan, gave no indication about whether or how Canada might help in that crucial effort after its troops follow their orders and return home from this southern province next summer.
> 
> Repeating the Harper government's long-stated policy, Cannon said Canada would help Afghanistan through diplomacy and aid projects when the military mission ends ....


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Jul 2010)

Tom Ricks:

LA Times misunderstands Afghan war
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/19/la_times_misunderstands_afghan_war



> ...The question Petraeus is actually posing to Karzai is how the central government is going to win over armed villagers. That is why this move is important -- it empowers locals and so gives Petraeus a lever to start challenging the ways of those around Karzai.
> 
> News flash for the LA Times: Our biggest problem in Afghanistan isn't the Taliban, it is the corrupt and abusive ways of the Karzai government. The Taliban is a byproduct of that behavior. (And yeah, our second biggest problem is the Pakistani government.)



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jul 2010)

A _Globe & Mail_ editorial saying Canada should stay and help in AFG - gasp! Highlights mine....


> The latest conference on Afghanistan set 2014 as the date for the assumption of military control of the country by Afghans. It is an ambitious timetable, and one that will require defeat of, or reconciliation with, the Taliban. With defeat unlikely, Canada expressed support for reconciliation at the conference. *Now Canada must make sure it stays around, training troops and maintaining an energetic presence, to help give effect to reconciliation.*
> 
> Lawrence Cannon, the Foreign Minister, stressed the preconditions to reconciliation: “Those who are reconciling must renounce violence, accept the Afghan constitution and cut all ties to terrorist groups.”
> 
> ...


Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 Jul 2010)

I guess we’re next on the Talibs best wishes list
http://unambig.com/i-guess-were-next-on-the-talibs-best-wishes-list/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Jul 2010)

“Canada can expect Taliban ‘thanks’ at end of Afghan mission”
http://unambig.com/canada-can-expect-taliban-thanks-at-end-of-afghan-mission/



> One detects some real, ironic anger in this piece by Matthew Fisher of Postmedia News...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Aug 2010)

1) Frank Rich and 2) Chris Alexander:

1) Kiss This War Goodbye
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01rich.html?ref=todayspaper



> ...the national yawn that largely greeted the war logs is most of all an indicator of the country’s verdict on the Afghan war itself, now that it’s nine years on and has reached its highest monthly casualty rate for American troops. Many Americans at home have lost faith and checked out. The war places way down the list of pressing issues in every poll. Nearly two-thirds of those asked recently by CBS News think it’s going badly; the latest Post-ABC News survey finds support of Obama’s handling of Afghanistan at a low (45 percent), with only 43 percent deeming the war worth fighting.
> 
> Perhaps more telling than either these polls or the defection of liberal House Democrats from last week’s war appropriations bill are the signs of wobbling conservative support. The gung-ho neocon axis was predictably belligerent in denouncing WikiLeaks. But the G.O.P. chairman Michael Steele’s recent “gaffe” — his since-retracted observation that “a land war in Afghanistan” is doomed — is no anomaly in a fractured party where the antiwar Ron Paul may have as much currency as the knee-jerk hawk John McCain. On the night of the logs’ release, Fox News even refrained from its patented shtick of shouting “Treason!” at the “mainstream media.” Instead, the go-to Times-basher Bernie Goldberg could be found on “The O’Reilly Factor” telling Laura Ingraham, a guest host, that the war “has not been going well” and is a dubious exercise in “nation-building.”
> 
> Obama was right to say that the leaked documents “don’t reveal any issues that haven’t already informed our public debate in Afghanistan,” but that doesn’t mean the debate was resolved in favor of his policy. Americans know that our counterinsurgency partner, Hamid Karzai, is untrustworthy. They know that the terrorists out to attack us are more likely to be found in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia than Afghanistan. And they are starting to focus on the morbid reality, highlighted in the logs, of the de facto money-laundering scheme that siphons American taxpayers’ money through the Pakistan government to the Taliban, who then disperse it to kill Americans...



2) The huge scale of Pakistan's complicity
Thanks to WikiLeaks, the involvement of Inter-Services Intelligence in the Afghan conflict is now obvious, argues Chris Alexander, Canada's former ambassador to Afghanistan  (usual copyright disclaimer)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/Somnia/article1657931/



> ...
> *GENERAL ASHFAQ KAYANI V. THE REST OF THE WORLD*
> 
> As the War Logs make clear, the principal drivers of violence are no longer, if they ever were, inside Afghanistan.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Aug 2010)

Afstan: Two cheers for Bob Rae/Iraq: Clearly not Vietnam
http://unambig.com/afstan-two-cheers-for-bob-raeiraq-clearly-not-vietnam/



> Afstan: Good on Bobbity, though in this piece he only hints at a continuing role, i.e. non-combat training  in the Kabul area, for the CF post-2011.  Will the prime minister be willing to take up and run with what is clearly more than a hint?..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Aug 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Afstan: Two cheers for Bob Rae/Iraq: Clearly not Vietnam
> http://unambig.com/afstan-two-cheers-for-bob-raeiraq-clearly-not-vietnam/



Two cheers?  Hmmmm...rather convenient recollection by Rae of the Liberal's drive to withdraw fully from combat operations in Afghanistan by 2009...



> (2010, from above link) ..."The Liberal party helped draft the 2008 parliamentary resolution that permitted our troops to stay in Kandahar in a combat role, with an ever increasing role for the Afghan police and army and a stronger civilian and development presence."



With these words, Rae makes it seem as though the Liberals were supportive of Canada staying in Afghanistan in the combat role with a transition to mentoring later on, when nothing was further from the truth...he (and the Liberals) were clear that the primary mission should not be combat at all, that only the Afghans ans other nations should conduct combat operations:



> (CTV: 2 Dec 2007)...Rae said the Liberal party wants Canadian troops to remain engaged in rebuilding Afghanistan, but not with a primary mission of combat.
> 
> "That is a role that has to be assumed by *the Afghan army* and frankly *by others *if that's what NATO decides," he said.



This and other recent revisionistic recollections by opposition parties of their past policies serves only to remind us of the temporal, partisan nature of political response to societal beliefs.  Perhaps more like a bit of guilt on the part of those who were first against extension of the Canadian mission past 2009, then against Canada's involvement in the very combat operations in which they needed to engage in order to mentor the Afghan National Security Forces, and yet now against the very withdrawal in 2011 that they pressed the Government of the day for.   

Sadly, it seems the response by oppositions places primacy on opposition vice a critical consideration of what the right thing to do is and press the Government for action in a consistent and constructive manner.  :-\

G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Aug 2010)

Now, even Senator Colin Kenny says it's time to go:


> .... Afghanistan has no strategic significance to Canada. It supposedly has strategic value to our most important ally, the United States, but much of that value is cited in denying the dreaded al-Qaeda a sanctuary. But al-Qaeda has no shortage of sanctuaries in the Middle East and elsewhere, and going after the Taliban certainly hasn't put the slightest dent in al-Qaeda's influence around the world. If anything, it would appear to have convinced more young Muslims that the West wants to eradicate their belief system.
> 
> What should Canada do? We should get out of Afghanistan at the earliest opportunity, rebuild the Canadian Forces, and get on with missions that a) mean something to Canadians and b) have some chance of success.
> 
> Parliament has made the right decision. We can wallow around Afghanistan for another three years trying to save face. Or we can be adults and not get burned twice. Let us face a harsh truth: for all the efforts of our courageous troops, and the courageous troops of our allies, nation-building doesn't make sense in a nation that doesn't want to get built ....


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Aug 2010)

Guess who else is staying firm on Afstan?/Dead Talibs and brazen media
http://unambig.com/guess-who-else-is-staying-firm-on-afstan/



>



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Aug 2010)

Paul at _Celestial Junk_:

Anatomy of Cowardice (our government)
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2010/08/anatomy-of-cowardice.html

Terry Glavin:

Liberalism's Long Walk (Sen. Kenny amongst others)
http://propagandistmag.com/2010/08/03/liberalisms-long-walk

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Aug 2010)

Brian Platt:

Helping Our Public Broadcaster 
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/2010/08/helping-our-public-broadcaster.html



> Sometimes I like to rewrite the opening paragraph in CBC stories. Here's how the current one exists:
> 
> *Taliban Issue New Code of Conduct*...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Aug 2010)

Afstan: Our media and a senator
http://unambig.com/afstan-our-media-and-a-senator/



> Two unpublished letters to the editor...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Aug 2010)

Afstan: Not unconquerable, no “graveyard of empires”
http://unambig.com/afstan-not-unconquerable-no-graveyard-of-empires/



> Boy do I hate these myths which have become common currency in our media and public debate.  It appears almost no-one either knows any serious history in the first place or can even be bothered to do simple Google searches...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Dog Walker (7 Aug 2010)

Canada's policy must be focused on doing right
 The StarPhoenix August 6, 2010

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/opinion/Canada+policy+must+focused+doing+right/3365662/story.html?cid=megadrop_story

She is as unlikely a poster child for Canada's mission in Afghanistan as can be imagined, but 18-year-old Aisha's iconic image on the cover of Time magazine is a shocking reminder of what's at stake. 
Aisha (she asked her family name not be used for their protection) was a 12-year-old child when she and her 10-year-old sister were handed over to a Taliban fighter to pay off a family blood debt. At puberty she was forced to marry her mostly absent husband. The sisters were housed with the livestock, used as slaves and beaten regularly by her in-laws. Aisha escaped to Kandahar, but her husband tracked her down last year, dragged her back to his tribal area where he cut off her nose and ears. 
Bloodied and near death, she somehow managed to find her way back to Kandahar. This week, with the help of charities and the magazine, the now 18-year-old woman was put on a plane to the U.S., where she will undergo reconstructive surgery. 
Meanwhile, Time has taken heat from those who oppose the war, or at least America's role in it, for using the otherwise strikingly beautiful Aisha's face as a sort of "war porn" in order to raise support for a conflict that has gone on for nearly a decade and cost thousands of lives. But Aisha -- and thousands more like her -- are the reason countries such as Canada and the U.S. can't turn their backs on Afghanistan. 
It's worth noting -- and the Time article points it out -- that for tens of thousands of other Afghan women who were trapped in the same cultural and religious hell as Aisha, the assistance from the West has provided them with freedom, education and dignity. 
It's also worth noting that this task is far from over. 
In an op-ed piece in Monday's Toronto Star, Liberal foreign policy critic Bob Rae reminded Canadians of the scope of this task. NATO and Western nations enthusiastically signed up to do something about the Taliban. That these same democratic Western governments were able to ignore the darkest side of the Taliban -- the way it treated its women, children and cultural minorities -- until the 9/11 attack says much about the weak effort to support that commitment since then. 
Canada, however, can claim to be among the few exceptions. In blood and treasure, this country has contributed disproportionately to make Afghanistan work. Aisha's now famous face is a chilling reminder of just how short even this effort has been to meet the need. 
Mr. Rae makes two particularly noteworthy points. One is that the ignorance and hatred that can allow the mutilation of a child bride and foster the continuous war against modernity in this part of the world "pose a risk not only to people in a region but to us." 
And unlike Cold War conflicts such as Vietnam, where the American loss didn't result in ultimate failure, this time "the West can't afford to lose," Rae says. 
He goes on to insist that, with the changing role of Canada in Afghanistan with the imminent departure of its main fighting force, Canadians and parliamentarians must "re-engage on this issue in the fall." 
This discussion is long overdue, but was put to rest during the 2008 election campaign when Prime Minister Stephen Harper made it absolutely clear Afghanistan wasn't to be talked about and the 2011 deadline for departure was non-negotiable. 
Canada's seemingly never-ending cycle of minority governments makes serious debate over controversial issues too dangerous for political parties. Yet one would think that, given the close similarity of the Liberal and Conservative parties when it comes to major foreign policies, such as this conflict, the two most-likely governing parties could set aside bitter animosities long enough to do what's right for the country. 
This point was made by University of Ottawa academics Philippe Lagassé and Justin Massie in an opinion piece published in the Globe and Mail Wednesday. Both parties, they suggest, recognize that Canada has a significant international role to play and must support a robust military to do so. Of all of this, Aisha knows and cares little. She just wants her nose restored. 
But her sister is still a slave in Taliban territory. And in a bitter irony, while Aisha is in California undergoing reconstructive surgery, it is what Canada does next that will determine whether we can look ourselves in the face following 2011


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Aug 2010)

Here's another:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100809/world/international_us_afghanistan_execution

Interesting to see that the Taliban is disavowing any knowledge of this.


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Aug 2010)

Letter of mine in _Toronto Star_ today:

Don’t tar Afghan mission with Yankee brush
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/845340--don-t-tar-afghan-mission-with-yankee-brush



> Re: *CSIS reviewing role in Afghan detainee interrogations*, Aug. 2
> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/843055--csis-reviewing-role-in-afghan-detainee-interrogations
> 
> This Canadian Press story seems to be trying to tar the Canadian Forces’ missions in Afghanistan with a Yankee brush.
> ...



*Update*: The conclusion of a related post:
http://unambig.com/don%E2%80%99t-tar-afghan-mission-with-yankee-brush/



> ...
> *Predate*: More misinformation (if not disinformation) from our major media:
> 
> *Afstan: Not unconquerable, no “graveyard of empires”*
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Aug 2010)

I'm going to say "not likely", but if a news editor wants to think so....


> Defence Minister Peter MacKay strongly suggested today that the Harper government is open to extending the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan beyond July, 2011, if agreement can be reached with the opposition.
> 
> "I know that Ignatieff and Rae have made comments recently about training, and extending the mission," MacKay said while on a tour of CFB Meaford. "That's all very interesting."
> 
> ...


Including better protection for interpreters helping out Canadians?
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/89135/post-962131.html#msg962131
I bet my loonie on government not changing its mind.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Aug 2010)

Devil's advocate here, but _what if_ a member of HM's Loyal Opposition introduced a motion that called for the CF to continue operations in a training (or whatever) roll beyond the current end date, and what if that motion passed?

My gut feeling is that the executive branch would not be forced into keeping the forces there; however, what effect would it have on the executive?


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Aug 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Devil's advocate here, but _what if_ a member of HM's Loyal Opposition introduced a motion that called for the CF to continue operations in a training (or whatever) roll beyond the current end date, and what if that motion passed?
> 
> My gut feeling is that the executive branch would not be forced into keeping the forces there; however, what effect would it have on the executive?



_IF_ it was introduced (notwithstanding any party's nervousness about introducing such a proposition) and _IF_ it passed (NDP'll say no, Bloc will most likely say no, Liberals may say yea, and the Conservatives would depend on what the leader wants), given recent statements about following the will of Parliament as expressed through the March 2008 motion, the executive would be pretty hard pressed to _not_ act in line with the motion without seeming to be selective of its read of the will of Parliament.


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Aug 2010)

Terry Glavin:

"Lord Swinton knows perfectly well what he is doing."
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/08/lord-swinton-knows-perfectly-well-what.html



> Julian Assange Is A War Criminal...



Paul at _Celestial Junk_:
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-afghan-wikileak-is-treason.html

Why the Afghan Wikileak is Treason



> ...
> As if our limp-dish-rag PMO refusing to stand up for our Afghan allies and our troops isn't insulting enough by its silence, we now have to contend with the fact that our PMO can't even manage a proper retreat...



_UA_:

Afstan: Delhi still playing the Great Game/US and Canadian games
http://unambig.com/afstan-delhi-still-playing-the-great-gameus-and-canadian-games/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Aug 2010)

Strangely enough, the link I provided to the McKay statement story here ....
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-962236.html#msg962236
.... no longer seems to work.

Here's a link to the story at one of the sister papers in the same chain, with a PDF attached just in case the sister paper has trouble, too.

Meanwhile, this is the spin the NDP is giving this story - via e-mail mail out:


> For two years, Stephen Harper has repeatedly promised Canadians that the combat mission in Afghanistan would end in 2011.
> 
> Canadians were counting on it. They thought they could take Stephen Harper at his word. They were wrong.
> 
> ...


And I though the reporter assumed quite a bit from the word "interesting"....


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Aug 2010)

So basically Brad is broadcasting to the world that he doesn't know the difference between the combat mission and the mentoring/teaching work that we've been doing?  Once again the NDP clearly show themselves to be low rent and uninformed.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Aug 2010)

After getting a good night's sleep, I see a sliver (like, this >|< thin) of hope in MacKay's latest comments here:


> "There's not a lot of flex as to what we can do, within the context of the parliamentary motion ... We'll respect the letter of the motion."


Since the letter of the motion says "leave Kandahar", not "leave Afghanistan", some might see hope there for a change of heart.  Me, I'll believe it when I see the change of heart.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Aug 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> After getting a good night's sleep, I see a sliver (like, this >|< thin) of hope in MacKay's latest comments here:Since the letter of the motion says "leave Kandahar", not "leave Afghanistan", some might see hope there for a change of heart.  Me, I'll believe it when I see the change of heart.



One of the problems is that the NDP, media and the public love peacekeeping...the low rent kind where you don't have to buy tanks, airplanes, ships etc.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Aug 2010)

.... the Taliban has editorialized even more - lead sentence from a statement on their English page (screen capture of full statement here at non-terrorist page):


> With the Dutch troops’ pullout, *Canada has reopened talks of quick Afghanistan withdrawal ahead of the schedule as its nation strongly opposes the Afghan war and prefers a road to peace* ....


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.....


----------



## McG (13 Aug 2010)

> *All this Afghan war fatigue is really getting tiresome*
> The Chronicle-Herald
> 13 Aug 2010
> 
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Aug 2010)

I think this is appropriate.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Aug 2010)

QMI columnist with too little, too late, giving some background to an earlier story he wrote, shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the _Copyright  Act_:


> Canada won’t cut and run, Prime Minister Stephen Harper boldly declared in 2006 when his government was new to power and brimming with enthusiasm for the Afghan mission.
> 
> Four years later the Harper government is preparing to do just that. The official line is that, come what may, every last Canadian soldier, other than those assigned to protecting embassies, will be out of Afghanistan by December 2011.
> 
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (13 Aug 2010)

Excellent uptodate analysis of the situation Here from the New York Times:
Just the start, more at link:

The State of the War
We believe that the United States has a powerful national interest in Afghanistan, in depriving Al Qaeda of a safe haven on either side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This country would also do enormous damage to its moral and strategic standing if it now simply abandoned the Afghan people to the Taliban’s brutalities. 

But, like many Americans, we are increasingly confused and anxious about the strategy in Afghanistan and wonder whether, at this late date, there is a chance of even minimal success. 

The trove of military documents recently published in The Times showed, once again, why this is so hard: the weakness of the Afghan Army and the corruption of the Afghan government; the double game being played by Pakistan; the failure of the Bush administration, for seven years, to invest enough troops, money or attention in a war that it allowed to drag on until it has now become the longest in the nation’s history. 

The WikiLeaks documents, however, end in late 2009 and don’t show us how the war is going now or whether President Obama’s decision in December to send 30,000 more troops (the last won’t be in place until the end of this month) has a chance of altering those realities. 

The answer to that question also depends on whether President Obama and his top advisers can finally secure the full commitment and cooperation of the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, and Pakistan’s military commander, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Aug 2010)

A somewhat tounge in cheek answer to the question "what happens when we (the West) leave Afghanistan" by the Chicago Boyz:

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/14798.html



> *Afghanistan 2050: A Travel Guide*
> Posted by James C. Bennett on August 12th, 2010 (All posts by James C. Bennett)
> 
> Southwest China: Lhasa to Kabul (Rough Planet TravelWikiTI, 2050 edition)
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Aug 2010)

Reproduced, without comment, under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:



> Afghan couple stoned by Taliban for adultery: official
> *If confirmed, executions in Kunduz province would be the first of their kind by the Taliban in the area*
> 
> Mohammad Hamed
> ...




The report is, as the story says, unconfirmed.


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Aug 2010)

Petraeus takes a lead (usual copyright disclaimer):

Gen. David Petraeus says Afghanistan war strategy 'fundamentally sound'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/15/AR2010081501514.html



> KABUL -- In his first six weeks as the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus has seen insurgent attacks on coalition forces spike to record levels, violence metastasize to previously stable areas, and the country's president undercut anti-corruption units backed by Washington.
> 
> But after burrowing into operations here and traveling to the far reaches of this country, Petraeus has concluded that the U.S. strategy to win the nearly nine-year-old war is "fundamentally sound."
> 
> ...


  

Meanwhile from Mr Gates:

U.S. hopes to begin Afghan security transfer by spring
Pentagon chief Gates says that with NATO training troops ahead of schedule, some Afghan forces may be given security responsibilities, freeing up Western troops to focus on insurgent-held areas.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-progress-20100816,0,1848947.story



> With training of Afghanistan's army and police ahead of schedule, American officials now believe the U.S.-led military coalition could begin transferring some security responsibilities to Afghan forces as early as spring.
> 
> Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said in an interview that given faster-than-expected progress in training army units, it was likely that those forces could assume primary responsibility for security sooner in less violent areas of the country, freeing up NATO troops for operations elsewhere.
> 
> ...



Plus transcript and videos of Petraeus interview on NBC's _Meet the Press_.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38686033/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Sapplicant (16 Aug 2010)

They should've just carpet-nuked every country that had celebrations and dancing in the streets in the wake of 9/11. Deep-seeded hatred, the kind where you're taught to hate your neighbour from the day you're born, isn't going away anytime soon. There is no politically correct way of dealing with these kinds of people. We (the UN) are trying to deal with completely irrational and illogical people using logic and ration.  :brickwall:


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Aug 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> They should've just *carpet-nuked every country* that had celebrations and dancing in the streets in the wake of 9/11. Deep-seeded hatred, the kind where you're taught to hate your neighbour from the day you're born, isn't going away anytime soon.



Soooo - you telling me that recommending the mass genocide of millions of people is based on something other than "deep-seeded hatred"?


----------



## Journeyman (17 Aug 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> They should've just carpet-nuked every country that had celebrations and dancing in the streets in the wake of 9/11. Deep-seeded hatred, the kind where you're taught to hate your neighbour from the day you're born, isn't going away anytime soon. There is no politically correct way of dealing with these kinds of people. We (the UN) are trying to deal with completely irrational and illogical people using logic and ration.  :brickwall:


The only part of the entire poorly thought-out rant I can agree with is  " :brickwall: "


ps - the term is "deep-_seated_," and the opposite of "irrational" is not "ration"  :


----------



## dapaterson (17 Aug 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The only part of the entire poorly thought-out rant I can agree with is  " :brickwall: "
> 
> 
> ps - the term is "deep-_seated_," and the opposite of "irrational" is not "ration"  :



Yes, but we do provide food aid as part of the larger attempts to win over the locals...


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Aug 2010)

More from me, Bruce R., and Terry Glavin:

AfPak: Not just flooding in Pakistan/Afstan miscellany/Plus “moral vacuity” *Update*
http://unambig.com/afpak-not-just-flooding-in-pakistanafstan-miscellany/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Aug 2010)

Afstan: A gem from Mr Glavin/BruceR. Update
http://unambig.com/afstan-a-gem-from-mr-glavin/



> Earlier on our fine polemicist:
> 
> *Afstan, our zombies, pomo psyb, and reactionary scum*...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Aug 2010)

Afstan: “We have not even bothered to try” (with a jab at _Ceasefire.ca_ and Mr Staples)
http://unambig.com/afstan-we-have-not-even-bothered-to-try/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Aug 2010)

With links to much more:

Afstan: Even the Toronto Star seems open to keeping some Canadian troops
http://unambig.com/afstan-even-the-toronto-star-seems-open-to-keeping-some-canadian-troops/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> With links to much more:
> 
> Afstan: Even the Toronto Star seems open to keeping some Canadian troops
> http://unambig.com/afstan-even-the-toronto-star-seems-open-to-keeping-some-canadian-troops/
> ...




My guess is that most of those who now, apparently, _support_ a training mission really don't; what they really *do support* is anything that creates political problems for Prime Minister Harper and his government. _"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, etc."_


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Aug 2010)

In which case the political class in this country are *all* a bunch of unprincipled bas....s with no concept of statespersonship.  But we knew that, didn't we :rage:?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Sapplicant (29 Aug 2010)

Sorry about the rant before.. I should stay away from the computer when drinking barley pops. Idiocy aside, question to ask... Are they going to set up a licensed opium trade in A'stan, similar to that of Turkey and India? Maybe have the UN buy the opium for production into painkillers that can be given as aid to the "have not" countries where people are suffering? Same with the cannabis, considering that it's given to AIDS patients here... Why not have the UN buy it, then give it to people who need it? Seems a good way to win over the hearts and minds of the farmers of said crops. Provide financial aid, and receive some much needed medicine in return. Everybody wins....


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Sep 2010)

Afstan: We’re outta there, gone, lock, stock and no smoking barrels (or memos in Kabul)
http://unambig.com/afstan-were-outta-there-gone-lock-stock-and-no-smoking-barrels-or-memos-in-kabul/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Sep 2010)

Two posts by BruceR. at _Flit_ worth thinking on:

Today's essential Afghan reading: people who know what they're talking about (plus comment from Bruce, also knows a bit)
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_09_07.html#006781

More on killer UAVs
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_09_07.html#006780

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Sep 2010)

Ignorance in odd places: Afstan is a UN-sanctioned mission
http://unambig.com/ignorance-in-odd-places-afstan-is-a-un-sanctioned-mission/



> For some reason I just received in the mail a “Citizens’ Panel Survey” from the United Nations Association in Canada.  Here are the first two questions...



*Update*: Also in _National Post's_ "Full Comment":
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/09/09/mark-collins-un-support-for-afghanistan-is-news-to-un/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## byrd365 (10 Sep 2010)

Hi folks sorry if I have placed this in the wrong spot feel free to move it. I was talking with my Father the other day who's finally come to terms with me achieving my dream of becoming a member of the CF Oct.19 swearing in. Any how he's a full blooded NDP supporter anti anything that's not Peace,Love and Happiness. While we talking he made a comment about the mission in Afghanistan saying " I am against us being in Afghanistan but I'm also against us leaving before the job we set out to do is complete. I feel that if we leave before then that the young men and women who sacrificed there lives would have died in vain." Having said that I was wondering if any members of the CF or civilians who may have lost a family member or a friend to the mission feel the same way??


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Sep 2010)

byrd365 said:
			
		

> Hi folks sorry if I have placed this in the wrong spot feel free to move it. I was talking with my Father the other day who's finally come to terms with me achieving my dream of becoming a member of the CF Oct.19 swearing in. Any how he's a full blooded NDP supporter anti anything that's not Peace,Love and Happiness. While we talking he made a comment about the mission in Afghanistan saying " I am against us being in Afghanistan but I'm also against us leaving before the job we set out to do is complete. I feel that if we leave before then that the young men and women who sacrificed there lives would have died in vain." Having said that I was wondering if any members of the CF or civilians who may have lost a family member or a friend to the mission feel the same way??



I'll answer that:

I've lost a son and at least two people I call friends. As a member of the CF, we do what the Government of Canada tells us to. 

As for my personal feelings, I will refrain from making comment.

Thank you and good luck with your time in the CF.


----------



## BF1 (10 Sep 2010)

I have two kids serving in Afghanistan right now.  I am a retired soldier and have also served in Afghanistan.  The soldier in me wants to stay and finish the job.  The father in me wants the mission to end now and bring my kids home safely.  I guess it all depends on your perspective.  Good luck in the CF.


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Sep 2010)

The "serious" begin the giving up (remember the Iraq Study Group?):
http://www.usip.org/iraq-study-group/members

High-level doubts on Afghanistan
Former officials who once supported the war are now questioning it's worth the cost.
By Doyle McManus (usual copyright disclaimer)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-afghanistan-20100912,0,6278870.column



> Our 9-year-old war in Afghanistan has long had its critics. But now, a number of former officials who once supported the war — or were at least willing to give the U.S. military time to see if it could be won — are questioning whether the benefit of stabilizing Afghanistan is worth the daunting cost.
> 
> The doubters include Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, the closest thing the United States has to an official "foreign policy establishment"; Leslie H. Gelb, his predecessor; and Robert D. Blackwill, a former aide to President George W. Bush.
> 
> ...



Plus:

A dubious battle for Afghan hearts and minds
By David Ignatius
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/10/AR2010091006381.html



> Avisitor to U.S. military bases in Afghanistan sees lots of PowerPoint slides that purport to show progress is being made, despite setbacks. But two studies deepened my worries that the current strategy, without adjustments, will not achieve its goal of transferring responsibility to the Afghan government starting next July.
> 
> These reports are important because they go to the central premise -- namely, that Afghan security forces and governance institutions can be improved in time to make a gradual handover work. Looking at the studies, I scratch my head and wonder whether, as in the old joke about the Maine farmer who is asked for directions, the correct answer about our ambitious Afghanistan itinerary may be: "You can't get there from here." If that's so -- if there are basic weaknesses in plans for governance and training -- then President Obama and his commanders should make adjustments before it's too late.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, is an interesting, even provocative idea from a credible source:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Taliban+winning+losing+says+former+adviser/3515062/story.html


> 'The Taliban is winning, we are losing,' says former U.S. adviser
> *Pull out NATO forces, let Afghanistan divide: Blackwill*
> 
> BY DAMIEN MCELROY, THE DAILY TELEGRAPH
> ...




This indicates, to me, that we – the big, Western, US led ‘we’ – have no hope of developing a coherent strategy.

China would love and hate this: Blackwill's proposal would be another defeat for America; on the other hand, keeping America _engaged_ in Afghanistan, especially in a failing cause, serves China's interests. But, the Chinese want, above all, stability on their Western borders and in their Western provinces. Afghanistan is a source of instability.

India, too, would worry: what would be the impact on (to? for?) Pakistan of a divided Afghanistan with an independent _Pashtunistan_? Would it hasten the disintegration of Pakistan or would it embolden the Pakistanis?

Interesting proposal.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Sep 2010)

Nice outlook to have.  "We're losing, so let's quit."

Heck, the Germans had high morale and wanted to continue the fight against us right up to the bitter end, so that's no metric by which to guage success.


----------



## observor 69 (13 Sep 2010)

On the other hand those who tried to assassinate Hitler, Rommel and other senior military and government officials, the "elite" equivalent of their day saw that the war was lost and it was time to sue for peace and retain Germany's physical integrity.


----------



## mariomike (13 Sep 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Heck, the Germans had high morale and wanted to continue the fight against us right up to the bitter end, so that's no metric by which to guage success.



High ranking members of the German Army were trying to kill Hitler. Security around him was very tight because of that. As long as Hitler was alive, they could not surrender.
The power of a police state can not be over estimated, but the people were becoming apathetic.

The Gestapo executed some 2,500 German civilians. The Wehrmacht executed 15,000 German soldiers for desertion. The US military only executed one member for desertion in the ETO, and none in the PTO.
When a government has to execute that many of its soldiers and civilians, it indicates a serious morale problem.
Rommel himself reportedly said something to the effect of, "Every day the army fights on, we loose another city that night." 

Hitler was able to stand in city centres in the 1930's and point out they were pretty much intact after WW1. He could no longer say that. Air defence of German cities had been promised:
"No enemy bomber can reach the Ruhr. If one reaches the Ruhr, my name is not Goering. You may call me Meyer."
Herman Goering

"The decline in German morale was of utmost importance to the Party. The regime responded with 'atrocity propaganda', exhortation and, where this failed, sheer brutality.":
 Earl R. Beck, Under the Bombs: The German Home Front 1942-1945

75 percent of Germans believed the war was lost in the spring of 1944, owing to the intensity of the bombing.

"TRENDS IN WEHRMACHT MORALE":
http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/1/78.full.pdf

In another study, American personnel interviewed 500 Germans shortly after the war. 83 per cent went into the war with "high" or "medium" morale. By 1945, only 21% reported their morale in one of those two categories, and 78% reported their morale as "low".

"The soldier on the battlefield will just have to dig a hole, crawl into it, and wait until the attack is over. What the home-front is suffering now cannot be suffered much longer."
Field Marshall Erhard Milch 

There was war weariness, willingness to surrender, loss of hope for German victory, and distrust of their leadership.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Sep 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> On the other hand those who tried to assassinate Hitler, Rommel and other senior military and government officials, the "elite" equivalent of their day saw that the war was lost and it was time to sue for peace and retain Germany's physical integrity.


They wanted Hitler dead in order to sue for peace with the West, so that they could carry on the fight against the USSR.  They knew that Hitler was mucking things up.

Irrespective of all this, the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS still fought on, bitterly, right up to the end.  That's my point.  And to link this back to the topic on hand, perhaps it's time to reduce Taliban-controlled and Taliban-supporting areas to rubble, ash and fire.  If that's what it takes, then that's what it takes.  All in or go home.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Sep 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> And to link this back to the topic on hand, perhaps it's time to reduce Taliban-controlled and Taliban-supporting areas to rubble, ash and fire.  If that's what it takes, then that's what it takes.  All in or go home.



What is victory in Afghanistan for the West?

That's the question we've never properly answered.


----------



## mariomike (13 Sep 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> They wanted Hitler dead in order to sue for peace with the West, so that they could carry on the fight against the USSR.  They knew that Hitler was mucking things up.



The fact that they wanted to "sue for peace" ( surrender ) shows they did not have "high morale". 
I have read most of H.H. Kirst's fictional books based on his time in the German army from 1933-45 as an officer, and they indicate a steady weakening of morale in the Wehrmacht. About people flipping from pro-Nazi, to pro-democracy or pro-communist, after the tide had turned.

This is from Wikipedia, so take it for what it is worth. There are references, but I have not verified them. 
Perhaps even before the war there were morale problems:
"Since 1938, conspiratorial groups planning an overthrow of some kind had existed in the German Army (Wehrmacht Heer) and in the German Military Intelligence Organization (Abwehr).":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_July_plot#Background


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Sep 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What is victory in Afghanistan for the West?
> 
> That's the question we've never properly answered.



Agreed. 
To me, victory will be achieved when Afghan Security Forces can operate on their own, when the national government can govern with minimal corruption, when women and girls can go to school and not be assaaulted, killed, raped etc just for going to school.
Victory will be acheived when Afghan men realize that the voice of the local regressive elements - the Taliban- are extremist and not representative of the population.
Victory will be acheived when Afghanistan can seal off the border area from "foreign fighter"s and take care of their own business.

My two cents.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Sep 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What is victory in Afghanistan for the West?
> 
> That's the question we've never properly answered.



To kill your enemy. To see him driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of his women.

Edited to add this before everyone jumps:    ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Sep 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> To kill your enemy. To see him driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of his women.
> 
> Edited to add this before everyone jumps:    ;D



Begs the question:

"Conan, what is best in life?"  ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Sep 2010)

Terry Glavin on a piece by Joshua Foust on the Afghanistan Study Group:
[more on that:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/49908.2100.html ]

Matthew Hoh's Plan for Af'stan: 'A unicorn to make everyone into happy rainbows.' 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/09/matthew-hohs-plan-for-afghanistan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Sep 2010)

Afstan: One consequence of getting out (but Danes noticed)
http://unambig.com/afstan-one-consequence-of-getting-outdanes-notices/



> How soon overlooked in favour of others.  Brief excerpt from p. 2 of a lengthy piece in _Spiegel Online_...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## canada94 (20 Sep 2010)

Im'a eat my piece of the cake and share what i have to think! I totally believe that if the rest of the Canadian society understood the conflict better, and knew our real reasoning for being there it would be a different story. As a Canadian civilian im not going to say i totally understand the conflict, as i've never been to Afghanistan in person, and the only way to really appreciate something and understand it has been to be there in person, or share understanding with someone who has. Then there are people on the complete other side of the spectrum who believe in being there (Afghanistan) for all the wrong reasons.

So i turn i believe if maybe the government or military shared the improvements other then "12 Insurgents killed.. etc.".. Maybe talk about the school's being built (if there are) or the road systems.. etc. I really don't know. 

Just wanted me say!

Mike


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Sep 2010)

The Main Stream Media doesn't care about us building schools. They want blood, because thats what sells papers. I'm sure countless schools, wells, roads have been built and not reported on, because its just not "newsworthy". The government can only go so far (I agree it hasn't gone far enough), its up to the MSM to carry that message on.


----------



## Dog Walker (21 Sep 2010)

US Imposed "Democracy" in Afghanistan 
by John W. Warnock, Global Research
September 21, 2010
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21126

Elections were held for the parliament in Afghanistan on September 18. Few Canadians were aware of this as there had been no coverage by our mass media. For geopolitical reasons, the U.S. government has been deeply involved in Afghanistan since the early 1970s. But Canada’s involvement in the war and economic development has been justified on the grounds that we are helping to build democracy. How has this been going?

There are many reasons why a liberal democratic political system has not been established since the U.S. invasion and overthrow of the Taliban regime in October 2001. 

First, it is clear that the majority of the Afghan people wanted the return of the 1964 Constitution, which was established in a very open and democratic manner. But the U.S. government, backed by its allies, said no. Afghanistan had a constitutional parliamentary form of government; the new constitution, imposed on the people by the U.S. government and its allies, established a very strong, centralized presidential system of government. 

For example, the president appoints provincial governors and mayors of cities. Would this be acceptable in Canada? In the United States?
    
Second, the U.S. government imposed Hamid Karzai on the Afghan people. They carefully chose the delegates to the original Bonn meeting in 2001. The five major democratic coalitions asked for representation, but the U.S. government said no. But the delegates chosen actually voted for Abdul Satar Sirat for interim president. He represented those who wanted a return to the constitutional monarchy. The U.S. government said no. The new interim president had to be Karzai, who had been a key agent for the U.S. government in transferring funds to the mujahideen during the civil war against the leftist government and their Soviet allies. No funds would go to Afghanistan unless Karzai was president. 
    
Third, the dominant political parties in Afghanistan today are the current versions of the radical Islamist organizations which were supported by the U.S. and Saudi Arabian governments during the civil war. But there are a good number of progressive democratic parties, alliances and coalitions which are trying to build links across ethnic, religious and regional lines. They strongly oppose the warlords and drug lords who have so much power in the present Afghanistan. The U.S. and Canadian governments have blocked their development and participation in the political system. 
    
Fourth, the Afghan people wanted all the warlords, drug lords and those responsible for human rights abuses over the past 20 years to be excluded from holding office and participating in politics. Instead they are in key positions in the Karzai government and dominate the parliament. They passed a law giving themselves immunity from prosecution for crimes which occurred over this period. 
    
The Afghan government states that around 17 million Afghans were registered to vote in the parliamentary election. There were 2600 candidates standing for the 249 seats in the Wolesi Jirga, the lower house. The electoral system in operation requires all candidates to run on a province wide basis, using the single transferable ballot. Few candidates were known to voters. There are now 108 political parties officially registered, but since the first election, President Hamid Karzai, backed by the U.S. and NATO governments, has refused to allow them to officially run candidates. Only individual names are on the ballot, not political identification. Would such an electoral system be acceptable in Canada?
    
The democratic political parties petitioned the Karzai government asking for proportional representation and electoral districts based on population, as had been used in the past. This was rejected. They also oppose the present system, where women must vote at separate polling stations, and the number is very limited and non-existent in many areas. 
    
Because of the general disillusionment with this political system, the turnout in the Presidential election in 2009 was only around 35% of eligible voters. Corruption and fraud were widespread. The main opposition candidate, Abdullah Abdullah, refused to participate in the required run off election, declaring that a fair election was impossible with Karzai as President.  Early reports are that less than 20% of eligible voters cast a ballot in the parliamentary election. There are widespread reports of fraud. 
    
Canadians have contributed a great deal in many ways to the U.S. project in Afghanistan. Have the results been worth the sacrifice? 

John W. Warnock is author of Creating a Failed State: The US and Canada in Afghanistan. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, 2008.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Sep 2010)

New Bob Woodward book:

What must US troops in Afstan feel…
http://unambig.com/what-must-us-troops-in-afstan-feel/



> …when it’s very, very clear their Commander-in-Chief’s heart really, really ain’t in it?..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Sep 2010)

Meanwhile in Australian...as for our government...

MPs to debate if Australia should stay in Afghanistan 
http://www.smh.com.au/national/mps-to-debate-if-australia-should-stay-in-afghanistan-20100929-15x15.html



> The federal government has foreshadowed a wide-ranging parliamentary debate on Australia's involvement in the conflict in Afghanistan before the end of 2010.
> 
> Every one of the 150 MPs in the lower house hopefully will have an opportunity to debate the commitment to the nine-year mission, Defence Minister Stephen Smith told parliament today.
> 
> ...



And the _Washington Post_ in on President Obama's case in a strong editorial:

Bob Woodward's book portrays a great divide over Afghanistan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/28/AR2010092805200.html



> SUPPORTERS OF President Obama's strategy in Afghanistan can only be disheartened by the portrait of his administration provided in Bob Woodward's new book, "Obama's Wars." By Mr. Woodward's account, many of the president's senior White House advisers believe that the modified counterinsurgency strategy he adopted last year is doomed to fail -- and some suspect the president shares their views.
> 
> The administration's lengthy deliberations about whether to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan last fall produced a sharp debate between Mr. Obama's White House and the military commanders responsible for Afghanistan -- and the rift appears to endure.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2010)

If one believes in reading tea leaves, Canada's Ambassador to AFG drops by a northern AFG training centre:


> Training the Afghan National Security Forces is a priority for NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). In addition to Canadian efforts on that front, many other nations are contributing to the training and mentoring of Afghanistan’s army and police force.
> 
> Across Afghanistan, allied forces are training and mentoring the Afghan National Security Forces. They are living, working and training alongside each other. During a visit to Mazar-e-Sharif in Afghanistan’s Balkh province, Canada’s Ambassador to Afghanistan, William R. Crosbie, and Canada’s Police Commander, David Critcheley, had an opportunity to see some of the efforts being made by countries including the United States, Italy and Germany.
> 
> ...



Also note all the other police-y stuff on Canada's AFG page this week:
- "Questions from a Seventh Grader" (answered by a police Sgt in AFG)
- "My Experience at a Forward Operating Base" (Attributed to an RCMP constable)
- "Chiefs of Police Get the Scoop on Canada’s Civilian Policing in Afghanistan."

Whatever could it all mean?


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Oct 2010)

Good detective work.  An expanded "civilian" police training mission, but no/no CF (except maybe some MPs seconded to the RCMP)?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Oct 2010)

Meanwhile Adrian MacNair, Mr _Unambiguously Ambidextrous_ himself, is there; seeing about detainees in this post:

Embedded In Afghanistan: Day Two
http://unambig.com/embedded-in-afghanistan-day-two/



> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Whilst Bruce R. at _Flit_ has...

Today's essential Afghan reading
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_10_02.html#006788



> ...The losers will be the majority of Afghans...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Oct 2010)

> Several members of Canadian families whose loved ones were killed in Afghanistan are calling on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to reconsider bringing the troops home next year.
> 
> The families were on hand to attend a memorial service Monday at Kandahar Airfield.
> 
> ...


More from the Canadian Press here.


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Oct 2010)

Not to be taken seriously: What amounts to an Afghan fellow traveller/Good questions from the _Toronto Star_
http://unambig.com/not-to-be-taken-seriously-what-amounts-to-an-afghan-fellow-traveller/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Oct 2010)

“Afghan women doomed if NATO leaves”/Kandaharis wary
http://unambig.com/afghan-women-doomed-if-nato-leaves/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Oct 2010)

This from the _National Post_/Postmedia News:


> The U.S. Marine running current operations in southeastern Afghanistan for NATO expressed anger and immense frustration Tuesday at the planned departure of Canadian troops from Kandahar next year.
> 
> “It is really is going to hurt us,” said Col. Dave Bellon. “It is a terrible time to lose valorous men and women whom we have come to rely on. That is as straight as I can be. It couldn’t be worse.”
> 
> ...



Similar comments on Canadian troops from him earlier this year (Google cache)


> "On what we and the Taliban both say is the vital strategic ground, Canada is still in charge during this critical time," U.S. Marine Corps Colonel David Bellon said during an interview that debunked repeated claims in the U.S. media that Kandahar is now an-all American show.
> 
> Bellon, director of operations for Regional Command South, works for British Maj.-Gen. Nick Carter who is running the division-sized operation, the biggest of NATO's war in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



This on the Aussies earlier this year as well.....


> .... Marine Lieutenant-Colonel Dave Bellon: "I love working with them. I think that they are a tier one force in the world right now. Your military is capable. Your officers and your enlisted leadership are fantastic. We enjoy working with them and they get tremendous results." ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2010)

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, got me thinking:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/canadian-pullout-could-threaten-afghan-mission-senior-nato-officer-says/article1744755/


> Canadian pullout could threaten Afghan mission, senior NATO officer says
> 
> Kandahar— Globe and Mail Update
> 
> ...




*Hindsight is 20/20*, but THE _”critical juncture in the mission”_ probably occurred about four years ago when we, literally, had the Taliban on the ropes in Kandahar, where it really mattered, when Canadian and, indeed, Western public opinion was behind the mission, when *hope* existed … but in 2006/07 we, the Canadians, were almost alone in Kandahar; we were stretched too thin; NATO, including the USA, left us dangling in the wind – to, inevitably, suffer a resurgence of the Taliban and a loss of public and government support. The Americans came, eventually, but with too little, too late – too many words, too much hectoring, too little of the _whatever_ *we* had in 2007 when we made a substantial, measurable, almost victorious difference.

It’s not Col Bellon’s ‘fault,’ it’s not the US military’s ‘fault,’ it’s not even George W Bush’s ‘fault.’ The fault lies in us all: politicians, soldiers and, above all, citizens of the West who misunderstood or, most likely never bothered to understand, what we were doing in Afghanistan or, even, why we were doing anything at all in that poor, sad country.

It is, probably, past time to “declare victory and go home.” There might be some sort of a military victory in the future – even without Canadians, but I, personally doubt that a _strategic_ victory is possible – anywhere in the Middle East or West Asia, including Iraq and Iran.

Canada did its bit, and more. Our people do not have the stomach for more and more effort with less and less return. The _strategic_/political and _operational_ leadership and management of Afghanistan – by all of the West, especially by successive inept, bumbling US administrations and, also especially, by our NATO allies - has been, consistently, poor to dreadful. I feel for Col Bellon; life will be harder for his TF; I just wish someone had thought like that back in 2006/07, when it might have made a difference.


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Oct 2010)

I have sat here being quiet about the situation in the south, but increasingly feeling it is the height of hypocrisy for various people in the NATO hierarchy to criticize us for pulling out. Where were they when we were battling the Taliban virtually alone except for small contingents of various Allies from time to time? The friggin' NATO tourists from old Europe were certainly absent when our troops, including many members of the this site, were bleeding and dieing.

It became a normal practice in RCS to detach Canadian guns to support Allied operations, and I believe this was also done with tanks and our sappers. Certainly I recall reading in the last few months an account in which a British officer explained that they felt no need to send their own tanks to Afghanistan as they could always get Canadian armour when they needed it. Our forces have pulled their own weight and then some. 

In the meantime, the enemy were able to recover and the US surge, welcome as it is, may well be too late. I do fear that we may be made the scapegoat for failure in Afghanistan to deflect criticism from the shortcomings of the rest of the Alliance.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2010)

Meanwhile, if you believe in such things, CBC.ca has a poll:


> Should Canada stick with its plan to withdraw troops from Kandahar in 2011? Why or why not?
> Should Canada stick with its plan to withdraw troops from Kandahar in 2011?
> Yes
> No
> ...


It'll be.... interesting to see how the comments unfold. :


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Oct 2010)

Did my bit.  Not going to put it up at _UA_ or _SDA_ since most Conservatives seem to follow the "troops out" party line.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## bdave (6 Oct 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> :It'll be.... interesting to see how the comments unfold. :



TADA!



			
				GetReal016 wrote:Posted 2010/10/06 at 4:42 PM said:
			
		

> Canada should never gotten involved in the first place!
> Why should we lower our standards to that of Americans??


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Oct 2010)

Just grokked that the question actually is "Should Canada stick with its plan to withdraw troops *from Kandahar* [emphasis added] in 2011?".

Ground combat units yes.  But CF out of Afstan completely?  That's the Conservative government's, er, "plan", not "Canada's".  

And why has keeping even the Air Wing at Kandahar been abandoned as a possibility?  Yikes, the _Toronto Star_ editorialized in August 2009:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/681563



> ...
> Subject to Parliament's approval, Canadian troops and police might still play a useful role mentoring their Afghan counterparts, with a view to working themselves out of a job. We can protect aid projects. And *perhaps provide transport aircraft and helicopters, as well as surveillance drones, to assist our allies* [emphasis added]...



This government is simply craven.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Oct 2010)

From Damian Brooks (founder of now-defunct _The Torch_) at _The Propagandist_:

Fighting And Dying In Afghanistan. For What?
http://propagandistmag.com/2010/10/07/fighting-and-dying-afghanistan-what



> A few months ago, a good soldier and better friend to me posed this question: “Should Canadian soldiers continue to bleed and die in Afghanistan on a mission that not one of our political parties is willing to fight – let alone lose – an election over?”..
> 
> In fact, the Afghan mission should have represented the perfect opportunity to meld the compassionate idealism of the political left with the hard-nosed practicality of the security-conscious political right and stand firm in our commitment – to our own national interests, and to the people of Afghanistan. This should have been the one mission we could all agree upon. That support for such a potentially bi-partisan effort has been allowed to slowly decompose to such embarrassingly meagre levels is an indictment of Canadian leadership across the political spectrum.
> 
> With this in mind, perhaps my friend’s question should be rephrased one more time: “If Canadian soldiers are going to continue to bleed and die in the dust of Afghanistan for the betterment of both countries, shouldn’t Canadian politicians be willing to invest a fraction of the commitment that our soldiers so willingly give?”



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Oct 2010)

Excerpts from Adrian MacNair's first post upon his return:

My Overall Impressions Of Afghanistan
http://unambig.com/my-overall-impressions-of-afghanistan/



> ...
> 
> For now, my foggy impression of Afghanistan is that it’s a country we’ll have to spend a generation and tens of billions of dollars [if not hundreds] to keep from becoming a failed state again.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Oct 2010)

It will be the Afghan 20-somethings who will form a large part of Afghanistan's future success.  As well, development reaching beyond the major population centers is a necessary condition for improvement.  Maybe not a hundred years, but at least a 15-20 year period to become sustainable with minimal outside assistance/intervention, I think.

regards
G2G


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Oct 2010)

More from Mr MacNair, an excerpt:

The Military Strategy In Kandahar
http://unambig.com/the-military-strategy-in-kandahar/



> ...
> President Barack Obama concluded a 92-day review of the Afghan war last year, culminating in his December 2009 announcement of the surge under the McChrystal strategy. But a surge does not happen overnight. Increases in troop levels in April, July, and September were all phases that have been leading up to the current full-strength operations being delivered on the ground.
> 
> But Operation Moshtarak in Helmand, particularly the bloody recapturing of Marjah, was a lesson for NATO forces. President Hamid Karzai came down to Kandahar in April to assure the local government that such an Apocalyptic siege would not take place in Kandahar.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Oct 2010)

Could the US actually be starting to win in Afstan?
http://unambig.com/could-the-us-actually-be-starting-to-win-in-afstan/



> From Paul at _Celestial Junk_, the fellow has a way with words:
> 
> "*Last Marshmallow Roast*"...



Plus similar stuff from Matthew Fisher of Postmedia News, who has rather different perspective from most of our journallists.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Big Red (17 Oct 2010)

If this is "winning", I'd hate to see what losing looks like.


----------



## KevinB (17 Oct 2010)

Big Red said:
			
		

> If this is "winning", I'd hate to see what losing looks like.



Ditto


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Oct 2010)

Afstan: Gen. Petraeus’ COIN strategy in operation
http://unambig.com/afstan-gen-petraeus-coin-strategy-in-operation/



> Excerpts from an important post at Tom Ricks' _The Best Defense_ blog
> 
> "Ignatius, Kaplan, and Klein just don’t get it: Petraeus is changing the Afghan war’s intensity, not its overall strategy
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Oct 2010)

And they got pissy with me when I wouldn't let the district leader of Hutal run projects....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39646568/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
Afghans pay off Taliban with 'American money' 

Construction firms, workers say they have to hand over some of their earnings Photos
AP Afghanistan: Nation at a crossroads - Nation at a crossroads .Advertisement | ad info
.By Hamid Shalizi 

Cash from the U.S. military and international donors destined for construction and welfare projects in restive parts of Afghanistan is ending up in the hands of insurgents, a contractor and village elders said. 

The alliance of largely Western nations who back President Hamid Karzai and have nearly 150,000 troops on Afghan soil have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on aid and infrastructure since they ousted the Taliban from power in late 2001.

With violence spreading and the insurgency bloodier than ever, some construction firms and workers on development projects say they are having to hand over some of their earnings to insurgents to protect their personnel, projects or equipment.

Mohammad Ehsan said he was forced to pay insurgents a substantial part of a $1.2 million contract he won from the U.S. military two months ago to repair a road in Logar province south of Kabul, after they kidnapped his brother and demanded the cash.

"You know we need this American money to help us fund our Jihad," Ehsan quoted them saying when he eventually spent over $200,000 of the project money to secure his brother's freedom.

Ehsan said the insurgents also demanded the cash be changed out of dollars into Afghan or Pakistani currency, saying greenbacks are "Haram" or forbidden for Muslims.

Paying off militants is common across Afghanistan, where it is hard to work in villages or remote areas without greasing the palms of local insurgent commanders, said Ehsan.

"We are aware of those kind of reports ... contracting methods are definitely considered part of the counterinsurgency effort," said Major Joel Harper, spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, when asked about Ehsan's payment. "Such incidents would be investigated, and we have measures in place to try and prevent these things happening."

A U.S. Senate inquiry into private security firms contracting in Afghanistan found last week that funds had sometimes been funneled to warlords linked to insurgents , but did not look at other possible channels taking foreign money to insurgent groups.

The Taliban regularly attack supply convoys and development projects as well as military targets, but spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid denied the group extorts money from contractors, saying other elements may use the Taliban name to defame them.

"It is totally baseless, we don't need any money from any organizations that are linked to the invading force," he told Reuters by telephone from undisclosed location. "The people support us willingly and we will continue our Jihad against all occupying troops and their contractors."

But even elders from Provincial Development Shuras — traditional local councils adapted to foster development — that receive cash for small-scale projects in their villages, say they are not immune to the extortion.

"The Provincial Reconstruction Team gave me 500,000 Afghanis ($10,000) to clean sewers in my village but I was forced to pay 200,000 of it to the Taliban," said Aslam Jan from Logar's Baraki Barak district.

The U.S. government's aid arm USAID said it was aware of the risks from working in dangerous areas and worked to counter them.

"We take very seriously allegations that our funds are finding their way into the Taliban funds. We investigate each such allegation," USAID said in a statement.

Afghans who run transport businesses through volatile areas also prefer to pay off the Taliban rather than hire private guards who are often magnets for insurgent attacks.

Abdul Ghafoor Noori, owner of a transport firm in Kabul, said paying the insurgents makes business sense.

"I pay the Taliban not to attack my goods, and I don't care what they do with the money," he said laughing. 

"If you don't, the next day your property is attacked and destroyed."


Don't worry.  Good Canadian money is being wasted in much the same way.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Oct 2010)

Brian Platt, author of the (sporadic) _Canada – Afghanistan Blog_, 
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/

is off--from _The Ubyssey_:

Why Afghanistan matters, and why I’m going
http://ubyssey.ca/opinion/platt-why-afghanistan-matters-and-why-i%E2%80%99m-going-there/

He'll be with Lauryn Oates of the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee:
http://afghanistan-canada-solidarity.org/if-nato-abandons-afghanistan-women-doomed

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Oct 2010)

The least shocking news item on this thread:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39646568/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
Afghans pay off Taliban with 'American money'  
By Hamid Shalizi 
Reuters  
KABUL, Afghanistan — Cash from the U.S. military and international donors destined for construction and welfare projects in restive parts of Afghanistan is ending up in the hands of insurgents, a contractor and village elders said. 

The alliance of largely Western nations who back President Hamid Karzai and have nearly 150,000 troops on Afghan soil have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on aid and infrastructure since they ousted the Taliban from power in late 2001.

With violence spreading and the insurgency bloodier than ever, some construction firms and workers on development projects say they are having to hand over some of their earnings to insurgents to protect their personnel, projects or equipment.

Mohammad Ehsan said he was forced to pay insurgents a substantial part of a $1.2 million contract he won from the U.S. military two months ago to repair a road in Logar province south of Kabul, after they kidnapped his brother and demanded the cash.

"You know we need this American money to help us fund our Jihad," Ehsan quoted them saying when he eventually spent over $200,000 of the project money to secure his brother's freedom.

Ehsan said the insurgents also demanded the cash be changed out of dollars into Afghan or Pakistani currency, saying greenbacks are "Haram" or forbidden for Muslims.

Paying off militants is common across Afghanistan, where it is hard to work in villages or remote areas without greasing the palms of local insurgent commanders, said Ehsan.

"We are aware of those kind of reports ... contracting methods are definitely considered part of the counterinsurgency effort," said Major Joel Harper, spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, when asked about Ehsan's payment. "Such incidents would be investigated, and we have measures in place to try and prevent these things happening."

A U.S. Senate inquiry into private security firms contracting in Afghanistan found last week that funds had sometimes been funneled to warlords linked to insurgents , but did not look at other possible channels taking foreign money to insurgent groups.

The Taliban regularly attack supply convoys and development projects as well as military targets, but spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid denied the group extorts money from contractors, saying other elements may use the Taliban name to defame them.

"It is totally baseless, we don't need any money from any organizations that are linked to the invading force," he told Reuters by telephone from undisclosed location. "The people support us willingly and we will continue our Jihad against all occupying troops and their contractors."

But even elders from Provincial Development Shuras — traditional local councils adapted to foster development — that receive cash for small-scale projects in their villages, say they are not immune to the extortion.

"The Provincial Reconstruction Team gave me 500,000 Afghanis ($10,000) to clean sewers in my village but I was forced to pay 200,000 of it to the Taliban," said Aslam Jan from Logar's Baraki Barak district.

The U.S. government's aid arm USAID said it was aware of the risks from working in dangerous areas and worked to counter them.

"We take very seriously allegations that our funds are finding their way into the Taliban funds. We investigate each such allegation," USAID said in a statement.

Afghans who run transport businesses through volatile areas also prefer to pay off the Taliban rather than hire private guards who are often magnets for insurgent attacks.

Abdul Ghafoor Noori, owner of a transport firm in Kabul, said paying the insurgents makes business sense.

"I pay the Taliban not to attack my goods, and I don't care what they do with the money," he said laughing.  
"If you don't, the next day your property is attacked and destroyed."

But don't worry.  There are hundreds of millions of _Canadian_ dollars being mishandled and wasted too.  Perhaps performance evaluations and promotions at CIDA and DFAIT ought to rest less on dollars spent and on actual results?  
Ah! What am I thinking?  "Process over Product, ALWAYS"


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Oct 2010)

*Harper's Afghan deadline dilemma*
John Ivison, National Post, Oct. 26, 2010


> Stephen Harper may get anuncomfortablereception from other world leaders at the NATO summit in Lisbon next month, unless he arrives armed with the news that the alliance wants to hear -- namely that Canada will commit to supplying 450 military trainers to school Afghan forces in Kabul after our combat mission ends next year.
> 
> Diplomatic sources say the Americans and the British in particular have been increasing the pressure on the Prime Minister to fill the shortfall of trainers needed to ease the transition from NATO troops to Afghan forces in 2014.
> 
> ...


More here - broken-record reminder that 2008 motion only says CF outta Kandahar in attached copy of motion.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Oct 2010)

But, see this. The Americans and Brits and other NATO nations don't vote in our general elections and Canadians have, in a large majority, given up on Afghanistan. They, most Canadians, want out: soon and completely.

Where the hell was NATO when we needed them in Kandahar? So, who gives a shit about NATO's wish list? We pretty much had this thing made in 2006/07 and we _might_ have actually made it all work IF NATO, including especially the USA, had bellied up top the bar - but it (they) didn't and we are where we are: on our way out.

Sorry, NATO, Canadians want out and Prime Minister Harper will, almost certainly, give them what they want.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Oct 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, see thisWhere the hell was NATO when we needed them in Kandahar? So, who gives a crap about NATO's wish list? We pretty much had this thing made in 2006/07 and we _might_ have actually made it all work IF NATO, including especially the USA, had bellied up top the bar - but it (they) didn't and we are where we are: on our way out.


Touché


----------



## GAP (26 Oct 2010)

NATO was quite willing to let Canada and some US and allies slug it out in Kandahar until Obama got into office and needed to be seen to be doing something useful in Afghanistan....the surge is strictly home grown politics on Obama's part, and has little to do with Afghanistan, except that happens to be where it is happening....

Harper was done a favor by the opposition parties. They gave him the out and he took it. All the whining and wringing of hands by the opposition about what to do now is laughable....


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Oct 2010)

Without waxing too eloquently, Canada fought the land battle of Panjwayi virtually by itself for most of the first three rotos. There were exceptions, but as far as I can determine the reinforcements never exceeded much more than a company in strength. At the same time, elements of the battle group were detached to other tasks such as reinforcing the Allied forces in the Sangin area or in the area of the Belly Button. With the enemy forced to disperse and lever the intensity down, we were then drawn into "whack a mole" for a lenghty period of time. For this we have been criticized for faulty tactics, when we had one battle group fighting in an area of operations that has now absorbed about a division's worth of Allies.

We do not need to be lectured by people that were quite prepared to see Kandahar defended to the last Canadian. Moreover we do not need to explain or apologize to them.


----------



## CEhopeful (27 Oct 2010)

We should be there because Canada has given too much to just pack up and leave, and hope the Taliban don't come out of the woodwork again in a year or two, and put Afghanistan and its people back at square one.  Far too many Canadians have paid the ultimate price, for our government to just decide that we are done there. Unfortunately there is much more fighting to be done there if we truly want to see a free Afghanistan.


----------



## Big Red (27 Oct 2010)

NotRambo said:
			
		

> We should be there because Canada has given too much to just pack up and leave, and hope the Taliban don't come out of the woodwork again in a year or two, and put Afghanistan and its people back at square one.  Far too many Canadians have paid the ultimate price, for our government to just decide that we are done there. Unfortunately there is much more fighting to be done there if we truly want to see a free Afghanistan.



Come out of the woodwork? They are openly operating shadow government at every level, including most districts.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Oct 2010)

NotRambo said:
			
		

> We should be there because Canada has given too much to just pack up and leave, and hope the Taliban don't come out of the woodwork again in a year or two, and put Afghanistan and its people back at square one.  Far too many Canadians have paid the ultimate price, for our government to just decide that we are done there. Unfortunately there is much more fighting to be done there if we truly want to see a free Afghanistan.


Yes there is, and the majority of Canadians have no stomach for a prolonged fight, nor do they want, according to polls, Canadian soldiers hurting anyone.

This will take a generation or more to sort out. Start with the four year olds now, with education and not from any religious school. In 40 years it might start to turn around.


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Oct 2010)

Brian Platt's visit blog at the _Ubyssey_, with lots of photos:  

From UBC to Kabul 
http://ubyssey.ca/afghanistan/

Mark  
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Oct 2010)

Plus from Bruce R. at _Flit_ (several internal links):

Things going well in Kandahar?
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_10_27.html#006793



> I want to think things are going well in Kandahar Province as much as the next guy, but everyone reading these sorts of stories should really keep in mind it's simply way too early to tell. Violence always dies down to baseline levels this time of year, and the fighters always exfil to Pakistan for winter. This will be the fifth year in a row this pattern has been observed, and every time some reporters have claimed this was the beginning of the end. For instance, here's Matthew Fisher same time a year ago.
> 
> I hope that's not the case again. But what's needed is a comparison not between a peak and a trough in the violence, but between this trough and the previous troughs; and then, when spring comes, a comparison between that uphill curve and the previous ones. Saying "we're winning" in Kandahar in October is meaningless. We've always been winning... in October.
> 
> A more accurate assessment might be that ISAF has now recovered roughly the same position around Kandahar geographically as we had in late 2007 or early 2008, and this time with many more troops than before...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Oct 2010)

Better shared late than never - a Library of Parliament paper "Canadian Policy Toward Afghanistan to 2011 and Beyond:  Issues, Prospects, Options", dated 27 Sept 10 attached (English).

This, from the exec summary:


> .... Canada is part of a much larger international endeavour in Afghanistan. Canadian decision-makers also face a daunting policy environment in which many factors are outside Canada’s control. At the same time, opinion surveys indicate a decline in public support for the current military mission and decreasing confidence in the outcome of the war, notwithstanding the large increases in U.S. troop deployments. According to one poll, a majority of Canadians foresee a Taliban role in a future Afghan government.
> 
> The results of the 2010 counter-insurgency campaign in Kandahar will be a crucial measure of progress toward achieving 2011 security objectives. As more U.S. troops have arrived, the Canadian Forces’ area of responsibility has been significantly reduced. Government policy calls for the transition to a completely civilian mission by the end of 2011.
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Nov 2010)

We, at least, have been doing our bit at KAF for a while (including hiring)--though the wind-up seems to be beginning a bit sooner than thought:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Afghan+combat+mission+wind+down+before+deadline/3765548/story.html

Allies Absent in Afghanistan - Helicopters Hired   
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Allies-Absent-in-Afghanistan-Helicopters-Hired-05366/



> Contracts to firms in Canada, Colombia, and the USA. (Nov 1/10)
> 
> Afghanistan is shaping up as a test of the NATO alliance. Thus far, the report is mixed. While a number of allied countries have committed troops, very few of the NATO countries’ available helicopters have been committed, despite promises made and commanders’ requests from the field. At the moment, Britain, the Netherlands, and the USA still contribute most of the combat helicopter support in theater, alongside some CH-47s from non-NATO partner Australia. They are supplemented by helicopters from some east bloc countries like Poland and the Czech Republic (Mi-8/17s), and the very recent addition of a few CH-47D Chinooks and Bell 412ERs from Canada. The sizable helicopter fleets belonging to NATO members like France, Germany, Italy, and Spain have seen some use in Afghanistan, but the bulk of their use has been in areas away from the serious fighting in the south.
> 
> ...



So Canadian (and other) civilians will be helping the US military--and probably Afghan Air Corps
http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/news/afghan-air-corps-reaches-new-heights.html
--chopper effort after the government pulls out most of the CF.  Nice.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## hippz (4 Nov 2010)

My two cents: We shouldn't be there at all, and we should leave now. We didn't declare war in any way, we just invaded and occupied as if we were Germany in WWII. Plus, why do you really think they attack us? Because they hate our freedom, or because we've been there policing them and telling them how to live for 20+ years? I'm sure if Russia occupied Canada and set up bases in Ottawa and Vancouver, we'd retaliate. I know I would.


----------



## GAP (4 Nov 2010)

Thank you for your  :2c:

Now that you've spent your allowance, run along now.... :


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> we just invaded



You might want to verify that.  We never _invaded_ Afghanistan.   :


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> My two cents: We shouldn't be there at all, and we should leave now. We didn't declare war in any way, we just invaded and occupied as if we were Germany in WWII. Plus, why do you really think they attack us? Because they hate our freedom, or because we've been there policing them and telling them how to live for 20+ years? I'm sure if Russia occupied Canada and set up bases in Ottawa and Vancouver, we'd retaliate. I know I would.




You would do well to think, or at least read a bit, before you speak. We went to Afghanistan at the _specific *request*_ of the United Nations Security Council that, in Resolution 1386 (2001), 20 Dec 01, said:

"_The Security Council,

Reaffirming_ its previous resolutions on Afghanistan, in particular its resolutions 1378 (2001) of 14 November 2001 and 1383 (2001) of 6 December
2001,
...
_Acting_ for these reasons under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. _Authorizes_, as envisaged in Annex 1 to the Bonn Agreement, the establishment for 6 months of an International Security Assistance Force to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the personnel of the United Nations can operate in a secure environment;

2. _Calls upon_ Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to the International Security Assistance Force, and invites those Member States to inform the leadership of the Force and the Secretary-General;

3. _Authorizes_ the Member States participating in the International Security Assistance Force to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate;
..."


The UN did more than just "ask" us, it "called upon" us to join ISAF and go to Afghanistan and take "all necessary measures" to fulfill its mandate which was, in subsequent resolution expanded from "Kabul and its surrounding areas" to all of Afghanistan, including Kandahar.

Our current mission in Afghanistan is just a much a UN mission as a baby-blue beret wearing _peacekeeping_ one. We are *not occupying* Afghanistan; we are there at the request of the elected Afghan Government and the United Nations.

That there are still Canadians who appear to believe that we are occupiers speaks volumes about:

a. the failure of successive Canadian governments to offer a clear, coherent explanation of _why_ we are there;

b. the failure of the public education system to equip most Canadians to comprehend the information that is (fairly readily) available.

No one who can read at anything above about third grade level has any excuse for thinking believing we are occupying Afghanistan.


Edit: fixed hyperlink


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Nov 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You would do well to think, or at least read a bit, before you speak. We went to Afghanistan at the _specific *request*_ of the United Nations Security Council that, in Resolution 1386 (2001), 20 Dec 01, said .....


To follow that up, the U.N. Security Council _STILL_ wants ISAF there - latest unanimously-agreed-to resolution on that (dated 3 weeks ago) attached.

You might want to consider more reading and more thinking, hippz, before typing.


----------



## hippz (4 Nov 2010)

Okay, so we technically didn't INVADE Afghanistan, but the US did, and we're helping them. If their congress didn't declare war, then this is an invasion. We're just helping them invade a country.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> Okay, so we technically didn't INVADE Afghanistan, but the US did, and we're helping them. If their congress didn't declare war, then this is an invasion. We're just helping them invade a country.


I guess you're OK with Afghanistan _not_ giving up Osama Bin Laden after he claimed responsibility for 9/11?  Or do you think 9/11 was carried out by the U.S. government and their allies?





I'm done here - enjoy your time here, hippz, as long as it lasts.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> Okay, so we technically didn't INVADE Afghanistan, but the US did, and we're helping them.


The same UN mandate applies. Either we're both invaders (hint: not) or we're both abiding by the UN and Afghan government's calls for assistance.


----------



## hippz (4 Nov 2010)

milnews.ca - I never said anything like that, I actually acknowledged that the Taliban still carried out the attacks, I am speaking as to why. Please read everything before trying to be arrogant.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> Okay, so we technically didn't INVADE Afghanistan, but the US did, and we're helping them. If their congress didn't declare war, then this is an invasion. We're just helping them invade a country.




Well, if we're going to be technical, that's not so, either.

I'm guessing you are getting your information from e.g. rabble.ca which relects the beliefs of people who:

a. are stupid; and/or

b. uninformed.


Edit; it's not nice call anyone, not even Judy Rebick, a liar - even though she is an old communist and almost all communists with IQs above 0.03 had to lie - so, as my old Mother would have wished, I changed it.


----------



## hippz (4 Nov 2010)

Lololol!!! No, I get my information from international law and the United States constitution. If the US Congress did not officially declare war, they are invading and occupying illegally. End of story.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> milnews.ca.....Please read everything before trying to be arrogant.


I don't believe he was being arrogant; I took it as mocking. 

Just sayin'



Wow, that's a whole whack of MilPoints over a 10 minute period. 
"My son's the only one in step."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> Lololol!!! No, I get my information from international law and the United States constitution. If the US Congress did not officially declare war, they are invading and occupying illegally. End of story.



Please specify and list your readings so we can read it also for rebuttal purposes................


----------



## hippz (4 Nov 2010)

> *Section 8 - Powers of Congress*
> 
> To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;



http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8


----------



## hippz (4 Nov 2010)

Might I also suggest giving Ron Paul a listen. Maybe check out his arguments in the 2008 Republican Presidential Debates?


----------



## George Wallace (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> Lololol!!! No, I get my information from international law and the United States constitution. If the US Congress did not officially declare war, they are invading and occupying illegally. End of story.



 ???

Let me get this straight; they would not have been invading and occupying illegally if Congress HAD officially declared war?

The US Congress did not declare war on Haiti, yet thousands of US troops were in Haiti to help after the earthquake.  Does this constitute an invasion force illegally occupying Haiti in your eyes?

You mind must be the example shown in the frying pan.


----------



## hippz (4 Nov 2010)

They didn't bomb the capital city of Haiti...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> They didn't bomb the capital city of Haiti...



hippz......first warning.


----------



## hippz (4 Nov 2010)

And what am I receiving one for, if I may ask?


----------



## Searyn (4 Nov 2010)

I have a question I feel is relevant to this discussion.

Do invading forces usually rebuild schools, hospitals etc for their captive populations to use freely? Do they dig wells for anyone to use without needing to bribe to a guard in the local mafia? Do invading forces usually spend hundreds of millions of dollars on their captive populations economy in an attempt to get them back to a self sufficient state?

Don't invading forces usually just destroy everything in sight in an attempt to scare the locals into a state of submission and once said submission-state has been achieved, don't they usually suck the resources of the area completely dry leaving the locals to basically die due to the elements?

Just wondering.

edit: typo


----------



## hippz (4 Nov 2010)

That's not the same as randomly bombing a city..


----------



## George Wallace (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> That's not the same as randomly bombing a city..




There is no such thing as "randomly bombing" a city.


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> That's not the same as randomly bombing a city..



Do you have a source to quote for this "random" bombing?


----------



## Searyn (4 Nov 2010)

Did they randomly bomb a city? or did they believe (based on available intel) that there was enough of a risk/gain ratio to justify bombing portions of the said city.

I can't because I'm not privy to ALL the intel they had. Are you?


----------



## hippz (4 Nov 2010)

I don't mean randomly choosing the city, I mean killing people without knowledge of them being civilians or insurgents.

And no, I have as much intel as any other civilian. The death reports speak for themselves. 



> A dossier released by Iraq Body Count, a project of the UK non-governmental non-violent and disarmament organization Oxford Research Group, attributed approximately 6,616 civilian deaths to the actions of US-led forces during the "invasion phase", including the shock-and-awe bombing campaign on Baghdad.
> 
> - Wikileaks (unfortunately): "Shock and awe"


----------



## Journeyman (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> A dossier released by Iraq Body Count.....


  _sigh_  ...and I told myself I was done with this mindless exchange.....   :brickwall:

You _do_ know that Iraq is two countries to the left of Afghanistan, right?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Nov 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You _do_ know that Iraq is two countries to the left of Afghanistan, right?



DING! DING !    Quote of the day!!!

hippz, 
Please do some serious reading before you try to debate with some of the "big boys" in this thread.
I consider myself somewhat well informed [thanks to folks on this site] and I wouldn't even think of jumping in here.


----------



## Searyn (4 Nov 2010)

Every news report, every independent survey, every scientific journal has an agenda. I'm not saying those numbers were inaccurate. But, did you notice that the report also did not mention how many of Iraq's military personnel (or civilians) loyal to, or just obedient to, Sadam were killed. You don't win a war by simply destroying the enemies military stength. You break their support structure, which includes the civilian population loyal to the enemy. 

Unfortunately in any wartime campaign there will be unnecessary civilian casualties (IE. those not loyal to your enemy and who just happen to live within your enemy's sphere of influence). It's impossible to be 100% positive no unnecessary deaths will occur. However, the modern day militaries of the UN do everything in their power to limit those casualties.

But again I too am just a civilian and the above is just my opinion. it's entirely up to you whether to agree, or disagree.

But also I believe this topic was "Afghanistan: Why we should be there (or not)..." not "Iraq: Why we...."


----------



## hippz (4 Nov 2010)

Wow, are you suggesting killing innocent civilians is a good thing?

You need your head checked..


----------



## hippz (4 Nov 2010)

And yes, I admit I went off topic to prove the US's BS, but only because I believe we're only there (Afghanistan) because they are.


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> Wow, are you suggesting killing innocent civilians is a good thing?



Did you see the words "unfortunately" and "unnecessary" there?  I don't believe he was condoning the killing of civilians.



			
				hippz said:
			
		

> You need your head checked..



So do you.  Why don't you go do that now?


----------



## Searyn (4 Nov 2010)

Take a second, closer look at my post. Never did I say killing *innocent* civilians is a good thing. Infact I said it was terrible, but unfortunately inevitable.

What I did say however was "You don't win a war by simply destroying the enemies military stength. You break their support structure, which includes the civilian population *loyal to the enemy*. "

That's a very VERY important distinction between the two groups.

Unfortunately you skipped over the important part of my post; "But, did you notice that the report also did not mention how many of Iraq's military personnel (or civilians) loyal to, or just obedient to, Sadam were killed."

Anytime you quote a study you need to look at what it says, as well as what it does not say, in order to get the full picture. Do you think the authors of that study are for or against the war in Iraq? Answer that question honestly and you'll notice whether or not it at least tries to stay impartial.


----------



## hippz (4 Nov 2010)

A civilian is a civilian, innocent until proven guilty. This is somebody's human rights you're talking about, which means you'd condone the same actions against yourself. Otherwise you're as bad as them.


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> A civilian is a civilian, innocent until proven guilty. This is somebody's human rights you're talking about, which means you'd condone the same actions against yourself. Otherwise you're as bad as them.



Again, he did NOT CONDONE KILLING CIVILIANS!


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> And yes, I admit I went off topic to prove the US's BS, but only because I believe we're only there (Afghanistan) because they are.




No, not really. We went to Afghanistan twice:

+ The first deployment, to Kandahar, ordered in 2001 by Prime Minister Chrétien, was to placate Canadian public opinion that, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 *demanded* that we (Canada) “do something.”

+ The second deployment, to ISAF in Kabul, was also ordered by Jean Chrétien, but it was _arranged_ so that, should the Americans decide to ask, we (Canada) could truthfully say that we were already fully committed to operations in Afghanistan – supporting the ill-conceived “Global War on Terror.”

The US rationale for supporting the Afghan _Norther Alliance_ campaign to topple the Taliban 'government' – done, by the way, with UNSC support – was that the Taliban had, effectively, handed Afghanistan over to _al Qaeda_ to be used as a base from which it could and did launch *illegal* (according to the UN Charter – see Chapters I and VII) terrorist attacks on other countries. I would hardly call that BS.


Edit: And this ends my _contributions_ in response to hippz; I am far too old for pointless argue with children. I echo JM:  :brickwall:


----------



## GAP (4 Nov 2010)

Ah, just punt the twit...he's not interested in logic, just in hearing himself....


----------



## Searyn (4 Nov 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Ah, just punt the twit...he's not interested in logic, just in hearing himself....



No, don't. He hasn't gotten too rude yet. And it's always good to have the "other side" of a debate present. Even if the majority of the people in the discussion feel his opinion is the wrong one.


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Nov 2010)

Searyn said:
			
		

> No, don't. He hasn't gotten too rude yet. And it's always good to have the "other side" of a debate present. Even if the majority of the people in the discussion feel his opinion is the wrong one.



Not necessarily wrong, just _uninformed_.


----------



## Searyn (4 Nov 2010)

Heh ok maybe wrong was the incorrect word to use. I don't 100% agree with uninformed either, it does seem like he's done a little reading on the topic. How about just "different" lol


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Nov 2010)

Searyn said:
			
		

> Heh ok maybe wrong was the incorrect word to use. I don't 100% agree with uninformed either, it does seem like he's done a little reading on the topic. How about just "different" lol



Misguided?


----------



## aesop081 (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> And no, I have as much intel as any other civilian.



Please......grown ups are talking. Run along.......


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Nov 2010)




----------



## GR66 (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> A civilian is a civilian, innocent until proven guilty. This is somebody's human rights you're talking about, which means you'd condone the same actions against yourself. Otherwise you're as bad as them.



I'm a civilian working at a military base along with MANY other civilians.  Some of us work directly for DND as civilian employees, however many others here are retail clerks at stores, cleaners, plumbers or simply family members of military personnel.  Is this (and every other military base) off limits as a military target in the case of war because attacking it might kill and injure "innocent" civilians?  After all, "a civilian is a civilian".

War is a dangerous and brutal thing.  Sadly people (including innocent people) die.  But don't kid yourself.  Modern warfare is much less indiscriminate than war at any other time in human history.


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Nov 2010)

Afstan: Some reactions to, and consequences of, Canada’s bugging out
http://unambig.com/afstan-some-reactions-to-and-consequences-of-canadas-bugging-out/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace (4 Nov 2010)

Do you think our young friend can make any sense out of that?


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Nov 2010)

Well, he would need actually to read it first .  And check the links too.  But that's, er, effort.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace (4 Nov 2010)

The sad thing in a way is how this affects us.  It is not the "Canadian soldier" who is loosing credibility here, but the Canadian government.  The "Canadian soldier" is highly respected by his peers in foreign nations.  The weakness is in the Canadian political will, both in Parliament and in the Public.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> And yes, I admit I went off topic to prove the US's BS, but only because I believe we're only there (Afghanistan) because they are.



Wow. For being a prospective applicant in the CF, you're pretty closed minded. The fact that you cite Wikileaks as a source just proves how out of touch you are. Nobody here is buying the "Western Invader Infidel" drivel you're trying to sell, so if that's really all you want to spout then maybe it might be time to find another forum to hang out on.

Just so you're aware, we're in Afghanistan as part of NATO's ISAF which was deployed in response to a UN Chapter 7 resolution from the Security Council. If you have a problem with us building schools that little girls can actually go to, then perhaps you are the one that needs their head checked.


----------



## Final (4 Nov 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

>


I sat here for at least 20 minutes (while reading the arguments), And I finally understand why you posted this picture!  It made me laugh a little..

Anyways, As to the discussion at hand, I think Hippz is looking at the downsides to this "Conflict" (Can we call it that?) and ignoring all the upsides to it.  If all you think about is the civilians killed, you'll never realize how many have been saved/helped.


----------



## CombatDoc (4 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> A civilian is a civilian, innocent until proven guilty. This is somebody's human rights you're talking about, which means you'd condone the same actions against yourself. Otherwise you're as bad as them.


Guys, don't feed the troll.  It is clear that a certain poster is both uninformed and trying to stir the pot, so why give him the satisfaction?


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Nov 2010)

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> Guys, don't feed the troll.  It is clear that a certain poster is both uninformed and trying to *stir the pot,* so why give him the satisfaction?


----------



## hippz (5 Nov 2010)

Maybe the arrogance, idiocy and closed-mindedness of many of the members here, including directing staff (especially the ones that try to give out warnings to people after they've completely abided by the Terms & Conditions), has made me second think ever joining the Canadian military.

Look, the title of the topic asked for my opinion, so I gave it. No need to turn into giant trolls and get all bent outta shape because I believe in the rule of law unlike most militaries. Someone even supported my point by saying we first went into Afghanistan because of 9/11.

I'm not even gonna try and talk through a brick wall anymore, there's no point. Have fun telling each other how wrong I am.


----------



## Searyn (5 Nov 2010)

Hippz (and others) Perhaps it's not the content of your posts that is making people angry. Maybe it's the tone you use when trying to get your point across. 

Insulting people in a variety of ways before you are 8 words into your sentence while trying to bash your opinion into their brains causes a negative reaction in your audience and no matter how true your opinion is, no matter how passionately you believe it, they will automatically stop listening to your words and start listening to the way you say them. 

Instead try using short concise sentences that are full of informed and accurate, as accurate as possible, facts to make your audience pause and think about what you have to say. Thereby forcing them to question their own beliefs. 

For example:



			
				hippz said:
			
		

> Maybe the arrogance, idiocy and closed-mindedness of many of the members here, including directing staff (especially the ones that try to give out warnings to people after they've completely abided by the Terms & Conditions), has made me second think ever joining the Canadian military...
> No need to turn into giant trolls and get all bent outta shape because I believe in the rule of law unlike most militaries....
> I'm not even gonna try and talk through a brick wall anymore, there's no point. Have fun telling each other how wrong I am.



and from hippz's opposition:



			
				CombatDoc said:
			
		

> Guys, don't feed the troll.  It is clear that a certain poster is both uninformed and trying to stir the pot, so why give him the satisfaction?



this is also unnecessary and just feeds the anger machine.

Your opinion would be better served by being polite, even to those who disagree with you.

Think of it this way, if someone ran up to you screaming and punched you in the face while trying to sell you a brand new ps3 or xbox game what would you do? 
Would you thank them for the very effective sales pitch and go play your game thinking you just got the best deal EVER! or will you punch them back automatically and not even notice the game they were selling was 50 dollars cheaper than the ones in the store?


----------



## hippz (5 Nov 2010)

Out of 14 posts by myself in that topic, THE LAST ONE was in a defamatory sense, and only because I've only received the same treatment myself. Nice try on trying to be the big mediator here.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Nov 2010)

hippz
Yes, should we be there or not?  I agree that you have an opinion that is as valid as anyone else's.  Having said that, blanket anti-US statements only raises the ire of most here.  That is where we find the problem.  I can only offer this: present facts and not hyperbole and everyone will "chill the fuck out".  Trust me on this.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> Maybe the arrogance, idiocy and closed-mindedness of many of the members here, i



You mean the ones who have actually been "over there" and in various other hell-holes around the world bringing aid, comfort and security to those who need it while also doing everything humanly possible to ensure, even at extreme risk to themselves, that only those who require to be dead are made so?                 And you????

Sorry Chris, go back to your bong, stupid back tattoo's and drum kit.......................until you're ready to enter the adult world.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Nov 2010)

hippz said:
			
		

> Maybe the arrogance, idiocy and closed-mindedness of many of the members here, including directing staff (especially the ones that try to give out warnings to people after they've completely abided by the Terms & Conditions), has made me second think ever joining the Canadian military.
> 
> Look, the title of the topic asked for my opinion, so I gave it. No need to turn into giant trolls and get all bent outta shape because I believe in the rule of law unlike most militaries. Someone even supported my point by saying we first went into Afghanistan because of 9/11.
> 
> I'm not even gonna try and talk through a brick wall anymore, there's no point. Have fun telling each other how wrong I am.



This is the first time I believe I have ever had the impression that it was this site that was the Trolls as opposed to A member.

I also find the comment of "believing in the rule of law" interesting as well.  Chris, there is no anonymity on the internet.  What you post is saved for eternity.  There are aids to bring back what you posted, such as the “Wayback Machine” where people can dig up old postings to the internet.  People posting photos and videos of themselves doing “illegal” acts on Facebook or Youtube are compromising any hopes of ever securing a job in a government position, the CF, or many credible occupations.  Rants on an internet site don’t help much either.  People from other sites may just be 
Googling you name or nickname and find you in their search for who you are. 


http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/71137/post-678628.html#msg678628


----------



## Journeyman (5 Nov 2010)

Oh man, it is _not_ going to be a good day. 

It was harsh yesterday, discovering that I was an invading, occupying infidel. 
Now I wake up this morning to find I'm an arrogant, closed-minded idiot.


And I'm not even finished my first coffee.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Nov 2010)

Hey, it can only get better, right?


Well, until you wake up to find out what you are tomorrow..........


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Nov 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Oh man, it is _not_ going to be a good day.
> 
> It was harsh yesterday, discovering that I was an invading, occupying infidel.
> Now I wake up this morning to find I'm an arrogant, closed-minded idiot.
> ...



Think of it as free therapy.  The truth can be ugly, my friend...  >


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Nov 2010)

In answer to a recent prolific person here whom I will not name, please read this excellent piece by Brian Platt, now in Kabul, at his _Ubyssey_ blog, excerpts:

A Response To The Responses
http://ubyssey.ca/afghanistan/2010/11/04/a-response-to-the-responses/



> So, as expected, I’ve gotten feedback from many people. Most of it has been very supportive, but some has been from those who oppose the deployment of international militaries to Afghanistan. And, by extension, the removal of the Taliban from power, because it wouldn’t have happened without the contribution of NATO and UN forces.
> 
> …When you come here and speak with Afghans, you quickly realize that almost all of the things we obsess over in Canada are entirely irrelevant to what Afghans are experiencing (Exhibit A: the preposterous uproar over the detainee “abuse” scandal.) Even the hardcore stoppists over at Code Pink were forced to reconsider their position on withdrawing the troops after they traveled to the country and had long discussions with Afghan women…
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2010)

More "unattributed whispers in the halls" speculation on Canada's future mission, via the _Toronto Star_:


> Canadian troops could remain “behind the wire” in Afghanistan involved in training local troops after their combat mission ends next summer, the Star has learned.
> 
> While the Conservative government is holding firm that the combat mission will end in 2011, one of three options emerging is that some soldiers could remain in the troubled nation, well away from combat zones, as trainers.
> 
> ...



Or are we seeing a kind of "wishbone fight" hinted at by someone way smarter than me here?


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Nov 2010)

I have heard from someone well up on Canadian activities in Afstan that the government is currently planning to remove all or almost all Canadian civilians and civilian police from Kandahar as the CF withdraw, and have our civilians based in Kabul. So there goes Canadian participation in the PRT. The Americans will certainly notice the elimination of a Canadian presence on the ground in the tough places and draw their own conclusions.

But CF trainers would certainly help a lot to counterbalance.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> I have heard from someone well up on Canadian activities in Afstan that the government is currently planning to remove all or almost all Canadian civilians and civilian police from Kandahar as the CF withdraw, and have our civilians based in Kabul. So there goes Canadian participation in the PRT. The Americans will certainly notice the elimination of a Canadian presence on the ground in the tough places and draw their own conclusions.
> 
> But CF trainers would certainly help a lot to counterbalance.
> 
> ...




The Americans could have and should have _noticed_ us in 2006 and 2007 and they should have and could have done something useful, when it would have mattered. They, as the leaders of ISAF and NATO and whatever are the authors of this misfortune. No one cares much what they _notice_ any more.

My guess is our withdrawal will be very nearly 100% - there may be a few civilians and some military observers or LOs in Kabul, nothing more would be my guess.


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Nov 2010)

A trial balloon is clearly being floated–in the Liberal-friendly Toronto Star–to smoke out political, pundit and public reaction.  Lets just hope the government and Liberals can both act like grown-ups and do the right thing. 

Earlier:

Afstan: Some reactions to, and consequences of, Canada’s bugging out/Fighting Germans Update
http://unambig.com/afstan-some-reactions-to-and-consequences-of-canadas-bugging-out/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My guess is our withdrawal will be very nearly 100% - there may be a few civilians and some military observers or LOs in Kabul, nothing more would be my guess.


I'll bet a loonie this way - interestingly enough, it's also what anonymous government sources are telling _La Presse_ (Google translation of article here):


> .... According to information obtained by La Presse, the date of withdrawal of Canadian troops is an irrevocable decision for the Prime Minister. In fact, Harper is currently discussing with the Liberals Michael Ignatieff last few days on Canada's intentions in Afghanistan once the military mission is complete.  And he intends to attach all the strings that option, with the support of the Liberals, before going to the NATO summit that will prioritize the future of the mission in Afghanistan.  Mr. Harper therefore formally not tell his counterparts from member countries of the Alliance military in Lisbon ....


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2010)

Changes by the hour - this from the Canadian Press:


> Canada is considering NATO and allied requests to keep troops in Afghanistan past 2011 to conduct non-combat training missions, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Sunday.
> 
> MacKay said the government would likely make a decision in the coming weeks in the run-up to the Nov. 18 NATO leaders’ summit in Portugal.
> 
> ...


Interesting to see how the circle gets squared with the La Presse allegations.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Nov 2010)

Apparently the Liberals are pushing hard for us to be there past 2011 in a "non-combat" role. Weren't they pushing for a complete and total withdrawl just a little while ago?


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Apparently the Liberals are pushing hard for us to be there past 2011 in a "non-combat" role. Weren't they pushing for a complete and total withdrawl just a little while ago?


IIRC, they changed their tune a bit after a group of them visited AFG this past summer as part of a parliamentary committee visit.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Nov 2010)

CTV news tonight had the same story - move to Kabul, behind the wire trg etc.


----------



## Container (8 Nov 2010)

Im completely ignorant of the ramifications of this new news today about hundreds of non-combat trainers in the coming years.

How does security for those forces work? Will "combat types" be required for base security etc?

Excuse me if its a dumb question.


----------



## HavokFour (8 Nov 2010)

Staying past 2011 is more or less political suicide. It's almost as if the Liberals _don't_ want to be put back in power.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Nov 2010)

Container: Most would likely be attached to the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan in Kabul, a non-combat establishment, read all about it:
http://www.ntm-a.com/

Meanwhile, a very useful round-up from Norman Spector:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/spector-vision/canadian-troops-in-afghanistan-liberals-hold-the-key/article1789425/



> …
> Though the PMO leaks presented this new training mission as an option being considered, the Defense Editor of the Times of London, Michael Evans, was already reporting it on Monday as a fait accompli (behind the paper’s pay-wall): “At the NATO summit on November 19 alliance countries may have to agree to retain some troops for a training role right up to 2014. The Netherlands has already withdrawn its troops but there will be pressure on the Dutch to send trainers. Canada, whose combat troops are to leave next year, will also be expected to commit to the training mission.”
> 
> Over at the Washington Post, on the other hand, no decision has yet been taken but the pressure on Canada was said to be intense:
> ...



And John Ivison points out the Danes have been pressing us, with some considerable reason:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/08/john-ivison-ottawa-under-pressure-to-remain-in-afghanistan/#more-17325



> …
> The apparent change of heart by the Harper government came after Gitte Lillelund Bech, the Danish Defence Minister, visited Ottawa last week and met with Mr. MacKay…
> 
> Ms. Bech said she believed that Canada will commit to keeping troops in Afghanistan. “My impression from meeting him [MacKay], is that he agrees we share the same values and are fighting to eliminate safe havens for terrorism. The goals haven’t changed but I fully understand you have to have a majority in Parliament supporting what you’re doing.”
> ...



Have you seen one blinking thing about the Danes and their casualties (they are fighting with the Brits in Helmand) in our self-obsessed major media? No wonder most Canadian effectively know nothing about the war other than dead Canadian soldiers, ramp ceremonies, and the Highway of Heroes.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson (8 Nov 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> Im completely ignorant of the ramifications of this new news today about hundreds of non-combat trainers in the coming years.
> 
> How does security for those forces work? Will "combat types" be required for base security etc?
> 
> Excuse me if its a dumb question.



Not a dumb question at all.  If we are resident on someone else's base, they will provide base security.  However, if we are out and about, generally we'd be responsibile for our own security.  I suspect (though have nt see or read anywhere) that if we remain in A'stan in the number suggested (600 or so) we'd see a breakdown more or less like this:

Command element: 40
Support element: 80
Force protection: 120
Trainers etc: 360

Note that this is a very quick and dirty off-the-top-of-my-head guesstimate; depending on arrangements it could look radically different.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Nov 2010)

Yes, the Danes have taken a statistically-significant percentage of casualties. Not to denigrate their sacrifices at all, but when you have only two infantry companies and a tank troop in location, 38 soldiers can be seen as significant. As a rough estimate (although presented as gospel at http://icasualties.org/oef/), the Americans lose that many monthly. Are either of those countries' statistics relevant to our foreign policy? No. 
Well, no more valid than France lecturing us on not wasting our Afghan experience.   :

As for the "colour-coded timetable to hand back control to local security forces," I hope they've taken the Taliban's crayons away -- I'd hate to see some staff officer's powerpoint get scribbled on because he never learned that "the enemy also gets a vote."


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Nov 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Command element: 40 *360*
> Support element: 80 *120*
> Force protection: 120*80*
> Trainers etc: 360 *40*


dapaterson:
Your estimate was based on facts not relevant to the mission (eg: providing actual training, providing sufficient logistical and administration support, etc).  You forgot stuff like staff bloat, HLTA plan and "Everybody wants in!"-ism.  So, I have adjusted your numbers accordingly  

;D


----------



## dapaterson (8 Nov 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> dapaterson:
> Your estimate was based on facts not relevant to the mission (eg: providing actual training, providing sufficient logistical and administration support, etc).  You forgot stuff like staff bloat, HLTA plan and "Everybody wants in!"-ism.  So, I have adjusted your numbers accordingly
> 
> ;D



I believe your revised estimate did not adeqautely consider the multi-national, whole of government requirements to ensure appropriate levels of CF representation in theatre.  Specifically, you have overstated the force protection and training requirements by a factor of 10; those PY savings can be re-directed into the Theatre Command Element to supervise the NCE.  As an added bonus, it abbreviates to TSE, which is a known contaminant that has as effects "beginning with headache, dizziness, and confusion".


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Nov 2010)

This is recent.  Shared with the usual provisions...

Extended Afghan mission to include 1,000 troops
Last Updated: Monday, November 8, 2010 | 2:51 PM ET 
CBC News 
Up to 1,000 Canadian troops will be stationed in Kabul as part of a plan to extend the country's non-combat mission in Afghanistan after 2011, CBC News has learned. (Nikola Solic/Reuters)Canada will keep up to 1,000 troops in Kabul as part of a plan to extend the country's non-combat mission in Afghanistan after 2011, CBC News has learned.

Up to 750 trainers and at least 200 support staff would work outside of the combat zone at a training academy or large training facility for Afghan soldiers and police officers, the CBC's James Cudmore reports. They would remain in Afghanistan until no later than 2014.

This is the first time specific numbers related to the proposed mission extension have been made public.  On Sunday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the government "is contemplating" transitioning from a combat role to a non-combat, training role but did not offer specific numbers.

And on Monday afternoon, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said he did not know how many troops the Conservatives were planning on keeping deployed there.  Canada's combat mission, which includes 3,000 troops, is due to expire in July 2011.  Allies, including the United States, have pressured Canada to remain.

"This is … not necessarily the most pleasing proposal for our allies," Cudmore reported, citing sources. "There was intense pressure from other allied nations, in NATO in particular, to see Canada extend its combat mission.  "I'm told that [Prime Minister Stephen Harper] has stuck to his guns on this one. If there is to be a future mission, it will be focused on training, not combat. No combat at all."


http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/08/afghanistan-extension-reaction.html


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Nov 2010)

I just hope the story, which looks to me more like a true leak than a government trial balloon, does not cause the prime minister to re-think the numbers, which certainly will get a lot a criticism: e.g., they will make it harder to take a significant part in those blessed UN peacekeeping missions.
http://unambig.com/why-the-globe-and-mail-is-not-a-newspaper-part-2-congo-section/

But our allies *will I think be especially pleased*; and the Dutch may get serious encouragement to come  back to Afstan in a similar role.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CombatDoc (8 Nov 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> IIRC, they changed their tune a bit after a group of them visited AFG this past summer as part of a parliamentary committee visit.


Interesting that the they had 8 years to educate themselves, and only took advantage of it at literally the last minute after we announced our complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.  If the news that we are going to put up to 1000 troops in Kabul in a training role is correct, then it will be interesting to see how the Roto 11 folks decide what get packed for Canada and what doesn't leave the country.  There are sure to be a bunch of staff officers with even greyer hair!


----------



## GAP (8 Nov 2010)

are the 777's coming out or are they going to train the Afghans on them also..?

(I have a son who's praying for a chance to go over)  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Nov 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I believe your revised estimate did not adeqautely consider the multi-national, whole of government requirements to ensure appropriate levels of CF representation in theatre.  Specifically, you have overstated the force protection and training requirements by a factor of 10; those PY savings can be re-directed into the Theatre Command Element to supervise the NCE.  As an added bonus, it abbreviates to TSE, which is a known contaminant that has as effects "beginning with headache, dizziness, and confusion".


:rofl:


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2010)

The pressure from a couple of countries - only a couple really matter to us - must be intense because I'm sure this (staying, in any military role) will be a politically costly decision. Canadians are tired of the Afghanistan mission; wrapping a rotting fish in fresh paper doesn't make it smell any sweeter.


----------



## GAP (8 Nov 2010)

There's a plus here....

The Libs and even the NDP, as late as last summer, were decrying about the potential total absence of the CF in Afghanistan, rather than do a training mission after 2011.....I would like to see them try to worm their way out of it once it's offered...


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Nov 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The pressure from a couple of countries - only a couple really matter to us - must be intense because I'm sure this (staying, in any military role) will be a politically costly decision. Canadians are tired of the Afghanistan mission; wrapping a rotting fish in fresh paper doesn't make it smell any sweeter.



I agree with you on this.  For example I was listening to Cross Country Checkup on CBC radio last night coming home from work.  The subject was about the Potash deal that went South.  The general concensus was that Harper only went thumbs down as a response to the strong voter opposition in Sask.  It was felt that it was purely a political decision and not an economic or business one.  He was concerned with his seats, period.  

This decision to extend, while I applaud it is opposed to the majority of Canadians.  Harper will take one on the chin for this and he must really be up against the wall to blink like this.  Just reading the comments howls of protest at the story link are the tip of the iceberg I believe.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Nov 2010)

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> Interesting that the they had 8 years to educate themselves, and only took advantage of it at literally the last minute after we announced our complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.


To be fair, it's not up to the Committee to go if someone says, "it's not safe enough to go."



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The pressure from a couple of countries - only a couple really matter to us - must be intense because I'm sure *this (staying, in any military role) will be a politically costly decision*. Canadians are tired of the Afghanistan mission; wrapping a rotting fish in fresh paper doesn't make it smell any sweeter.


Agree that it would be seen as a flip-flop (possible opposition messaging in an election:  he waited until the last possible second to do the right thing - assuming the opposition STILL thinks it's the right thing during the next election), and that it would go against the polling grain, even if sold and communicated well.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Nov 2010)

Now is the time at UA when we juxtapose! CF trainers for Afstan and NATO requirements
http://unambig.com/now-is-the-time-at-ua-when-we-juxtapose-cf-trainers-for-afstan-and-nato-requirements/



> ...
> One wonders how long it will take the dim bunnies in our major media to connect certain dots...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Nov 2010)

Latest from the PMO (not from the PM's mouth, but a spokesperson), according to CTV.ca:


> .... "After 2011, the government is considering the three following options: aid, development, and training in a non-combat role," Dimitri Soudas, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesperson, told CTV News Channel's Power Play.  "The hard work that's been done by Canadian soldiers, diplomats and development workers will continue, but in a very different way." ....


Quite the change from the PM's own words in January of this year:


> .... the bottom line is that the military mission will end in 2011. There will be a phased withdrawal, beginning in the middle of the year. We hope to have that concluded by the end of that year. As you know the Obama administration, not coincidentally, is talking about beginning its withdrawal in 2011, at the same time we are. We will continue to maintain humanitarian and development missions, as well as important diplomatic activity in Afghanistan. But we will not be undertaking any activities that require any kind of military presence, other than the odd guard guarding an embassy ....


----------



## Journeyman (8 Nov 2010)

> The pressure from a couple of countries - only a couple really matter to us - must be intense because I'm sure this (staying, in any military role) will be a politically costly decision.


Because I'm a "silver-lining" rather than "cloud" sort of guy     ....I think this is still marketable. 

Harper has to take his Communications staff and slap them solidly. Then start a campaign citing all the Opposition parties' support, and the positive comments in the media blogs, and sell this as "WE are enacting the wishes of *you*, the electorate." 

And say it over and over and over again.

Yes, Steven Staples, anarchy.ca, _et al_ will have kittens. So what. The clamouring self-appointed experts will never be happy; that doesn't get them media exposure.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Nov 2010)

The prime minister cuts and runs and then returns to the, er, fray.  Not exactly a serious wartime leader.  To be perhaps too cute: "War if necessary but not necessarily war".  A good decision--if that's what it is--without any good explanation.

Mr Soudas was a pathetic, I would say disgraceful, exponent of the government's "position" on both the CBC and CTV politics shows this afternoon.  Not a minister of the crown available?  An ignorant mouthpiece instead (not that ministers are appreciably better)?   There is more I would like to say about this government, the opposition, and the major media relevant to the matter...but readers can probably surmise the general direction.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (9 Nov 2010)

Troops would welcome extended mission in Afghanistan, says Canadian veteran
Article Link
 By Matthew Fisher, Postmedia News November 8, 2010

KANDAHAR AIRFIELD, Afghanistan — Reports that Canada is seriously considering taking on a NATO training mission in Afghanistan after current combat operations end next summer have given a jolt of adrenalin to many troops now serving in Kandahar.

"If the second training rotation begins early in 2012, which seems likely, that would be perfect for me," speculated a sergeant now on his fourth Afghan tour. The combat engineer added that another rotation, this time "inside the wire" as a trainer, would be the perfect way for him to end his long military career.

Word of the possibility of a new military role for Canada in Afghanistan, to which Defence Minister Peter MacKay hinted strongly during a security conference in Halifax on Sunday, spread quickly among soldiers as they woke up across Kandahar on Monday morning.

After 152 deaths in Afghanistan, many Canadians want the troops to come home. However, among those in combat arms who have borne the brunt of the casualties, there is almost universal interest in being part of a potential, smaller, follow-on mission designed to assist Afghanistan's burgeoning security forces, which are to become responsible for security across the country in 2014.

Reluctant to see Canada leave Afghanistan after the crucial role it has played in Kandahar since early 2006, and in urgent need of 900 more skilled military trainers, NATO has spent months crafting an offer that would be difficult for the Harper government to refuse.

After years of complex operations that have involved heavily armed vehicles, artillery, close air support and surveillance drones, the Canadians have been invited to return to Afghanistan as soon as that mission ends, but next time with little more than their duffel bags and skills honed on the battlefield.

The Canadians would be "an absolutely superb fit" as trainers because they have combat experience, Lt.-Gen. Bill Caldwell IV, the American who runs all training for Afghan soldiers and police, said in an interview with Postmedia News early this summer.
More on link


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Nov 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The prime minister cuts and runs and then returns to the, er, fray.  Not exactly a serious wartime leader.  To be perhaps too cute: "War if necessary but not necessarily war".  A good decision--if that's what it is--without any good explanation.



I'm going to have to disagree here. Harper long stated that he'd follow the wishes of Parliament, and that wish was total withdrawl by 2011. Now that the other parties have changed their tune, he has support to stay which he probably wanted to do in the first place, since total withdrawl was an out to lunch idea. It would have been political suicide for a minority government to state their position was to not completely follow the Parliament's resolution.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Nov 2010)

US/NATO not just twisting Canada's arm....


> The US ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder cannot imagine the Netherlands turning its back on Afghanistan. At a lecture at The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, the NATO ambassador said it would be logical for the Netherlands to send troops to protect Dutch police trainers in Afghanistan.
> 
> The Dutch parliament however, has great difficulty with the idea of sending troops back to Afghanistan. A Dutch mission in the province of Uruzgan only ended at the beginning of August.
> 
> ...


More at Radio Netherlands Worldwide here.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2010)

Lawrence Martin _may_ have the DS solution in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/harpers-switcheroos-leave-grits-empty-handed/article1790576/ 


> Harper’s switcheroos leave Grits empty-handed
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...




In my opinion a crass, partisan political motive is a better explanation for this move – IF it happens - better than either pressure from allies or thoughtful policy analysis.


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Nov 2010)

“Today’s essential Afghan reading”--Indeed it is, including BruceR.’s concluding observations at _Flit_.  Does give one furiously to think:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_11_08.html#006799



> Matthieu Aikins in the Walrus, "Last Stand in Kandahar." The cover photo(s) of Canadian soldiers in dress greens are a little misleading as the article is less about the Canadian presence than it is about the effects of the ISAF presence as a whole on Kandahar and environs. Aikins talks about a lot of things that few other commentators have been noting about the situation, like the drain of any talented Afghans into support roles for ISAF:
> 
> _As an internal ISAF assessment of Kandahar City noted, “An ironic side-effect of the American civilian surge in Kandahar is that, because we have hired many of the best educated and motivated Afghans to support us, fewer talented Afghans are available to work for the Afghan government itself in Kandahar City.”.._
> 
> It's hard to escape the conclusion that this is the largest, almost unbeatable problem with large scale non-host nation counterinsurgency, and for that matter, how we Canadians once saw "responsibility to protect" missions in general. For western countries to deploy sufficient numbers of their own troops to thoroughly pacify a "failed state" requires the injection of so much economic and social distortion that any positive effects of the troop presence risk being completely negated. It is not irrational to conclude that "nation-building" in the worst parts of the world can only be done with a much lighter footprint. Which comes with its own set of problems of course (see also Congo, Democratic Republic of).



Here’s another must-read by Mr Aikins, from _Harper’s Magazine_ a year ago; he knows the territory and people:

 The master of Spin Boldak:
Undercover with Afghanistan’s drug-trafficking border police
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/12/0082754

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Nov 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm going to have to disagree here. Harper long stated that he'd follow the wishes of Parliament, and *that wish was total withdrawl by 2011*.


Not _exactly_ - the March 2008 resolution (text attached) mentions leaving Kandahar, not Afghanistan.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Nov 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Not _exactly_ - the March 2008 resolution (text attached) mentions leaving Kandahar, not Afghanistan.



That wording is why I never thought we'd be leaving Afghanistan completely. The way the MSM has portrayed it though, we're taking our ball and going home.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Nov 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That wording is why I never thought we'd be leaving Afghanistan completely. The way the MSM has portrayed it though, we're taking our ball and going home.


True dat, based in no small part on what politicians are saying (and not saying).

Meanwhile, a _Globe & Mail_ editorial is endorsing a inside the wire training mission ....


> ....  Afghanistan will only be safe if the Afghan National Police and Army are dominant enough for the Karzai government to set the terms of negotiations. Afghans hold their security institutions in high regard (92 per cent think the ANA is honest and fair), but they need outside help.
> 
> Canadians have been providing that, in the Taliban heartland of Kandahar. The experience has given Canadians perhaps the best sense, of all NATO forces, of how Afghanistan security forces can help do nation-building, fight the Taliban, and defend their own people in the field. So a Canadian training force of 750 military trainers and around 200 support staff in Kabul would make a meaningful contribution at less risk to us ....


... and a U of O prof says it may not be a good idea having Parliament vote on the mission, via Postmedia News:


> .... "I'm certainly in favour of rigorous debate in the House of Commons and I do think that it's obligatory for the government to present to the Commons any change in the mission and what it plans to do .... That being said, I think it's problematic that we're holding these votes in the House and making it seem that it's the House that decides whether or not the military is deployed." ....


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Nov 2010)

Deploying forces is a crown (i.e. cabinet, effectively now PM, the constantly evolving constitution)  prerogative.  As is strictly speaking a declaration of war which nobody does any more anyway.  The Conservative  gov't made a big, fake populist, deal in 2006 about seeking HoC approval for major military deployments.  But no vote on Haiti this year (HoC  not sitting, warm and fuzzy anyway).

And yesterday the PM's mouthpiece--and a terrible one at that, Dimitri Soudas, where does he get these types?--was strongly implying that because any new Afstan mission would be non-combat no HoC vote was needed.  Down with populism, up with crown prerogative.

Unless declarations of war actually come back into fashion or use.  In which case maybe Parliament should indeed decide:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/going-to-war-parliament-will-decide/article1281065/

Mark
OttawaMark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Deploying forces is a crown (i.e. cabinet, effectively now PM, the constantly evolving constitution)  prerogative.  As is strictly speaking a declaration of war which nobody does any more anyway.  The Conservative  gov't made a big, fake populist, deal in 2006 about seeking HoC approval for major military deployments.  But no vote on Haiti this year (HoC  not sitting, warm and fuzzy anyway).
> 
> And yesterday the PM's mouthpiece--and a terrible one at that, Dimitri Soudas, where does he get these types?--was strongly implying that because any new Afstan mission would be non-combat no HoC vote was needed.  Down with populism, up with crown prerogative.
> 
> ...




Without wishing to drag the debate too far off track our _Constitution_ provides for a division of powers:

1. The decision to go to war rests with the crown - as MarkOttawa correctly describes it, it is a "crown prerogative; but

2. The power to tax and to provide money for the sovereign's wars rests, exclusively, with parliament. 

This _system_ has emerged in our _constitution_ over more than 1,000 years - it actually predates William the Conqueror and _Magna Carta_, finding its origins in the Anglo Saxon _witenagemot_, although that body did not always, or even often, perhaps, restrict taxation it did have the power to constrain kings because it did have the power to choose them.

Parliament's duty - to raise taxes, or not - gives it, not the crown, the ultimate authority over the military and its use.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Nov 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> But no vote on Haiti this year (HoC  not sitting, warm and fuzzy anyway).



Do you want a vote every time we do a humanitarian mission with the DART? As if some countries would be worthy of our help and some aren't? Why don't we just hold a vote in Parliament everytime a unit heads down for Southern Drive, or guys going on their Ranger course?

If troops are going into combat or are supporting a major UN/NATO Chap 6/7, then by all means vote. Otherwise, let the ELECTED government do their job and govern.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, is an interesting take on a possible vote on the Afghanistan mission:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Vote+Afghan+mission+would+create+constitutional+convention+expert+argues/3803763/story.html 


> Vote on Afghan mission would create 'constitutional convention,' expert argues
> 
> By Juliet O'Neill, Postmedia News
> 
> ...




Prof. Lagasse is, technically, correct. Parliament should not be allowed to tie the government's hands, but given that the government does not need to come to parliament every time it wants to spend money on overseas military operations – or much of anything else, for that matter, it is hard to see how else Parliament might express the _popular will_.


----------



## GAP (10 Nov 2010)

As was stated earlier....Parliament should control the funds for military activities by approving/disapproving the budget. If they feel strongly enough about it, they will vote it down. 

The government should stop this endless rhetoric about Parliament approving each and every mission. They have the authority, use it, or failing that make it a confidence vote.....  : either way it's decided....


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> As was stated earlier....Parliament should control the funds for military activities by approving/disapproving the budget. If they feel strongly enough about it, they will vote it down.
> 
> The government should stop this endless rhetoric about Parliament approving each and every mission. They have the authority, use it, or failing that make it a confidence vote.....  : either way it's decided....




Unless, of course, it, the government, doesn't care about parliament, beyond using it to embarrass the Liberals ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Nov 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Unless, of course, it, the government, doesn't care about parliament, beyond using it to embarrass the Liberals ...


For the win!  Sigh....

Edited to add:  then again, it's not just Parliament embarrassing Iggy now:


> The Stephen Harper government’s decision to keep a significant number of troops in Afghanistan past the scheduled July 2011 pullout didn’t come as a surprise to Canadian Peace Alliance cochair Derrick O’Keefe.
> 
> (....)
> 
> ...


More here.


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Nov 2010)

Very good background paper by Library of Parliament, well worth a look:

Canadian Policy Towards Afghanistan to 2011 and Beyond: Issues, Prospects, Options
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2010-26-e.pdf

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Very good background paper by Library of Parliament, well worth a look:
> 
> Canadian Policy Towards Afghanistan to 2011 and Beyond: Issues, Prospects, Options
> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2010-26-e.pdf
> ...




I hit my first problem in the *Executive Summary*, on page iii, in the 2nd paragraph which begins “One of Afghanistan's biggest challenges is to move towards democratic governance.”

I suppose that helping Afghanistan to move _towards_ democratic governance is an acceptable goal so long as we don't expect the movement to be swift, sure or sustained. Afghanistan is unlikely to become a functioning liberal democracy (the kind 99.99% of Canadians mean when they say “democracy”) in the lifespan of anyone reading this.

There are several good reasons to have gone to Afghanistan and to stay in Afghanistan: bringing democracy to the Afghans is not amongst them. A modicum of personal, individual safety? Yes. Some sense of security? Yes. A wee bit more equality than _Pashtunwali_ traditionally provides? Yes. But “freedom” or “democracy?” No. Sorry that's a mug's game and anyone who thinks we can *do* either “freedom” (freedom from what, freedom to do what?) or “democracy” needs to move to Washington where some not very smart people actually believe in all that.


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Nov 2010)

How the Taliban came back at Kandahar--this at first glance looks like non-governmental intelligence of a pretty high order (usual copyright disclaimer):

Executive Summary
The Battle for Afghanistan
Militancy and Conflict in Kandahar
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/the_battle_for_afghanistan



> By Anand Gopal
> November 9, 2010 | New America Foundation
> 
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Nov 2010)

Interesting question from G&M's Bill Curry, in a "Afghanistan mirroring Korea" column, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._:  "Will PM break his Afghan silence on Remembrance Day?"


> It is already Remembrance Day in Seoul, where Prime Minister Stephen Harper is visiting to take part in two days of G20 meetings.
> 
> But before the economic talks begin Thursday, he will join top British, Australian, French and South Korean officials to mark Remembrance Day at a Korean War Memorial.
> 
> ...


My guess:  if the PM's been reluctant to say anything on this politically touchy subject, I don't think he's going to use a day to remember the sacrifices of the fallen for this kind of political announcement.


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Nov 2010)

_Autres temps, autres moeurs--et autres principes._

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Nov 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> _Autres temps, autres moeurs--et autres principes._
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Could be....

Well, it seems if the PM's going to announce a mission extension on Remembrance Day, he didn't do it during his speech in Korea, according to the Canadian Press as of this posting:


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper laid a wreath at a Korean War Memorial on Thursday in honour of the Canadian soldiers who fought in the Korean war of 1950-53.
> 
> In Seoul for the G20 summit, Harper attended a moving Remembrance Day ceremony before the day's meetings commenced, accompanied by British Prime Minister David Cameron and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
> 
> ...



Edited to add latest from CTV.ca - He didn't say it in the speech, but he apparently said "it's not impossible" on the phone to CTV:


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has confirmed that the federal government is considering a new training mission for Canadian troops that would see an unknown number of them remain in Afghanistan until 2014.
> 
> Speaking from Seoul, South Korea, ahead of the G20 meeting, Harper told CTV News that he's "looking at the 2011 to 2014 period" for the new mission.
> 
> ...


Now that it's up the flagpole, the public temperature monitoring begins....


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Nov 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> My guess:  if the PM's been reluctant to say anything on this politically touchy subject, I don't think he's going to use a day to remember the sacrifices of the fallen for this kind of political announcement.


I was wrong - this, from the Canadian Press:


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he decided with some "reluctance" to reconsider his decision to pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan next year.  Speaking on the sidelines of meetings of the G20 leaders, Harper said he told his NATO allies in no uncertain terms that Canada's combat role is coming to an end.  But he said he sees merit in the argument that Afghan troops aren't ready to stand on their own, and Canada could help in their training.  "I do this with some reluctance but I think this is the best decision, when one looks at the options," he said.  "Look, I'm not going to kid you. Down deep my preference would be, would have been to see a complete end to the military mission." …. Harper said Thursday he did not succumb to pressure, but decided to reconsider based on the fact that the Afghans aren't ready for Canada to leave.  "I don't want to risk the gains that Canadian soldiers have fought for and have sacrificed in such significant numbers by pulling out too early, if we can avoid that."  Harper acknowledged he has been under pressure by NATO allies to continue in a combat role, but a training role was the most he could agree to …. "I think if we can continue a smaller mission that involves just training, I think frankly that presents minimal risks to Canada, but it helps us to ensure that the gains that we've made," Harper said.



I like the idea of doing something to keep helping Afghanistan get on its own feet to protect itself (and, hopefully, keep bad guys who'd do harm to US out of the country).

It'll be interesting to see the next few news cycles.  Now that he says "we should stay (at least a bit)", will MSM who (lately) called for a training mission now say "hey, he did the right thing?"  

Also, watch for public opinion polling in the next few days.

More on this from QMI/Sun Media, Postmedia News, the _Globe & Mail_, and Reuters.


----------



## GAP (11 Nov 2010)

PM plans ‘inside the wire' Afghan role while U.S. presses for riskier one
CAMPBELL CLARK From Thursday's Globe and Mail Thursday, Nov. 11, 2010
Article Link

The United States is asking Canada to take on a more robust – and risky – role after the planned 2011 pullout of combat troops from Afghanistan, including risking enemy fire outside of bases to mentor Afghan security forces in the field.

The push comes as Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to announce next week the government's new plan for Afghanistan – a plan that will likely keep Canada “inside the wire.” 

But the United States wants more. The Americans are seeking greater Canadian participation – a role “outside the wire” – and are hoping for such an announcement before next week's NATO summit in Lisbon.

This poses a dilemma for the Harper government: A greater role could set off the tripwire in Canadian politics, but refusing it would mean rejecting a call for help from our biggest ally.

Ottawa is now considering a post-2011 training mission, and it could be a big one – almost 1,000 troops, including 700 to 750 troops as trainers and another 200 in support roles, a government official said this week.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay insisted Sunday the training would be “inside the wire” – on training bases, rather than in the field. But some Liberals say they're watching to see whether the plan slides toward involvement in combat operations.

The Liberals, who have for months called for a Canadian training mission after combat troops withdraw next July, would probably oppose that mentoring.

That's exactly what the United States would like Canada to do. In an interview, Ivo Daalder, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, stressed that it's up to Canadians how they might want to be involved after the 2011 deadline, but he said the United States would like Canada to take on a training mission that includes mentoring in the field. 
More on link


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Nov 2010)

Meanwhile down south the line is changing (another reason they really want us to stay is some role):

U.S. Tweaks Message on Troops in Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/world/asia/11military.html?ref=todayspaper



> WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is increasingly emphasizing the idea that the United States will have forces in Afghanistan until at least the end of 2014, a change in tone aimed at persuading the Afghans and the Taliban that there will be no significant American troop withdrawals next summer.
> 
> In a move away from President Obama’s deadline of July 2011 for the start of an American drawdown from Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all cited 2014 this week as the key date for handing over the defense of Afghanistan to the Afghans themselves. Implicit in their message, delivered at a security and diplomatic conference in Australia, was that the United States would be fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan for at least four more years.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (12 Nov 2010)

Harper says Parliament’s okay not needed to extend Afghan mission
BILL CURRY SEOUL— Globe and Mail Update Friday, Nov. 12, 2010
Article Link

Extending Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan does not require Parliament’s approval because the new approach will focus on training, not combat, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday.

In 2008, Mr. Harper opted to seek Parliament’s support for a motion extending Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan through to July 2011, a vote the government won easily 198-77.

But this time is different, Mr. Harper answered when asked if another extension, one that is focused on training Afghan soldiers in Kabul until 2014, would require a similar vote.

“My position is if you’re going to put troops into combat, into a war situation, I do think for the sake of legitimacy, I do think the government does require the support of Parliament,” he said. “But when we’re talking simply about technical or training missions, I think that is something the executive can do on its own.”

The Prime Minister said he was aware however of recent comments made by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae that he said indicated they support a new training mission.

“Look, I do note that the Liberal party, Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Rae have indicated for the past several months that they favour a training mission,” he said. “If they have any specific ideas they want to share, I’m not resistant to having debates on that matter in the House of Commons. But I do think when it comes to decisions such as this, the government has to be free to act.”
end


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Nov 2010)

BruceR. raises some interesting points at _Flit_:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_11_10.html#006801



> ...reportedly the U.S. is pushing for a more combative role for us, with Canadians deployed primarily or at least prominently as police mentors.
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/pm-plans-inside-the-wire-role-while-us-presses-for-riskier-one/article1794464/
> I don't believe the article is correct here, though: "NATO commanders say they need trainers in classrooms, too – they identified a shortfall of about 900 a month ago, and officials say the shortfall is now about 750."
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Nov 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Extending Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan does not require Parliament’s approval because the new approach will focus on training, not combat, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday.




Personally, I think that's a tactical error. I would have the House vote. That way if the Libs defeated the motion and the excrement hit the fan, Harper's off the hook. If the Libs agree, then he's also off the hook as they'll take as much blame as he will. We all know the NDP and Bloc are going to vote against any extension of any type, and they don't have the numbers to alter the outcome, so they don't count. Although, the PM might be using the "let's talk then vote" ploy. I'm sure we'll see more as this develops.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Nov 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Personally, I think that's a tactical error. I would have the House vote. That way if the Libs defeated the motion and the excrement hit the fan, Harper's off the hook. If the Libs agree, then he's also off the hook as they'll take as much blame as he will. We all know the NDP and Bloc are going to vote against any extension of any type, and they don't have the numbers to alter the outcome, so they don't count. Although, the PM might be using the "let's talk then vote" ploy. I'm sure we'll see more as this develops.




I'm inclined to agree, for _tactical_ reasons, but see my comments, here, re: Prof Legasse's _technical_ concerns.

I think Canadians want to see who is on which side and I also think (from under my my highly partisan Tory hat) that this will cause some dissent in Liberal ranks and, probably, even a bit for the _Dippers_ (Peter Stoffer and _Taliban Jack_ layton will be on different sides, again.)


----------



## GAP (12 Nov 2010)

Harper caved when he let the vote go to the commons.....if he doesn't rein that back in and reassert his control over deployments, he will have lost it forever in an ever increasing spiral downward.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Nov 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Harper caved when he let the vote go to the commons.....if he doesn't rein that back in and reassert his control over deployments, he will have lost it forever in an ever increasing spiral downward.....




In a way ...

But planning and budgeting is now done in ways that, effectively, deprive parliament of its duty to approve _specific_ spending - especially for things like military operations. The government need not go to parliament until operations are well underway and then parliament is loathe to deny funding because it will be accused of depriving our soldiers of the bullets and beans they need to survive: Hobson's choice.

Maybe requiring at least "take note" debates is a good way but, _constitutionally_, parliament should be required to vote the money for every unplanned, overseas operation.


----------



## GAP (12 Nov 2010)

no argument with "take NOTE" debates, that's informative. 

As to the "Hobsons Choice" by the opposition.....they better have their duck lined up, but if they do and can prove their case....go for it.  Remember, the Cons are not always going to be in power, so the same rules apply to them when in opposition...


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Nov 2010)

Media out! Of Afghanistan
http://unambig.com/media-out-of-afghanistan/



> One particular reason why moving the Canadian military mission to Kabul will be a Good Thing: without the prospect of fairly frequent deaths and ramp ceremonies to obsess over (which coverage has only undermined support for the mission), and with the much greater costs of being based in Kabul, the Canadian major media will rapidly lose interest in what the Canadian Forces are doing in Afghanistan...



There's more.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Nov 2010)

Well said Mark.  MSM did on the whole, poison the well of public support for the mission.  It would be good to see them take a lessor interest of what may come.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Nov 2010)

When the news broke that the msn was going to be training in Kabul, I said to my wife that there's still scope for me to go. She said "but its in Kabul, not Afghanistan!" I am not joking. 

Geography is not her strong point!! ;D


----------



## HavokFour (12 Nov 2010)

I apologize for my ignorance, but can't the Afghans not train themselves after a certain point? Why not utilize the cascade effect;

1 Canadian trains 10 Afghans
Those 10 train 100
Those 100 train 1000
Those 1000 train 10000
...and so on.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Nov 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> I apologize for my ignorance, but can't the Afghans not train themselves after a certain point? Why not utilize the cascade effect;
> 
> 1 Canadian trains 10 Afghans
> Those 10 train 100
> ...



We can't train them completely to our standard. At a certain point, yes, their Kandaks from Kandahar will be able to run training camps and they will be effective. Right now, they need our expertise.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Nov 2010)

My only surprise is how long it took for the NDP Party Machine to crank this out:


> Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, with help from the Michael Ignatieff Liberals, are turning their backs on a previous commitment to end the military mission in Afghanistan in 2011 and bring our troops home from Afghanistan.
> 
> “Stephen Harper made a solemn commitment to bring the troops home next year, but he has again failed to live up to his words. And the Michael Ignatieff Liberals seem happy to join in and ignore their own promises,” lamented Layton. “New Democrats disagree, and we are demanding the Prime Minister bring this new extension to the House of Commons for public debate and a vote.”
> 
> ...


One thing that jumps out at me:  lack of HoC vote =/= "lack of public debate"


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Nov 2010)

I know I'm in this mode:  :deadhorse: but:

1. I suspect this is good politics - the BQ and NDP will gain the most, *but* they both gain at the expense of the Liberals; but

2. I think it is poor policy.

My policy issue is that we are being _used_ and unless we are going to a helluva lot in return we are also being _played_ for suckers.

I would prefer that the PM go to the nest NATO meeting and say, *"We had this thing almost won down in Kandahar in 2006/07 but our allies - especially France, Germany, Italy and, above all, the USA left us hanging out to dry. We did our best, we fought hard - our casualty rates attest to that, but, finally, while we may not have 'lost' we didn't win. We Canadians do not need lessons from anyone in this alliance on how to fight; we liberated many countries in this room - twice, and defeated a few others - also twice. We took our NATO duties seriously but, it appears, too few others did. So we have done our full and more than fair share and the rest, especially those who hung back, can try it on their own. We wish you every success but our forces are coming home in 2011."*

Will our NATO allies be hostile? Yes. Should we care? Not a bit. Our _strategic_ future lies across the Pacific, not the Atlantic. What about the Americans? Half will applaud, the other half, the Washington "in crowd" half will get over it fast enough. What about Afghanistan? Afghanistan in 2050 will look a whole lot like Afghanistan in 1950.


----------



## GAP (12 Nov 2010)

While my sentiments echo yours there are two niggling little points....

1. No Canadian PM has the balls to do it

2. No Canadian PM has the balls to do it


----------



## CombatDoc (12 Nov 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Troops would welcome extended mission in Afghanistan, says Canadian veteran
> Article Link
> By Matthew Fisher, Postmedia News November 8, 2010
> 
> ...


When I first read this article by Matthew Fisher, I wondered if the combat arms really wish to continue the Afghanistan mission in a training capacity.  The more that I ponder this, the more I feel that Mr Fisher has overstated the level of interest within the CF rank and file for continuing their involvement. My impression is that the troops are tired, and not just from Afghanistan - Op Podium (Olympics), Op Hestia (Haiti) and Op Cadence (G8/G20) come to mind.  Furthermore, in addition to the infantry, the CS and CSS have been stretched, particularly medical, engineers, log, etc.

Realizing that we are merely an instrument of policy to be used as the government dictates, I'd be interested to hear what others think on this issue.  Particularly interested in those with two or more previous missions to the sandbox.  Cheers.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Nov 2010)

Some of the troops are tired because the Army is doing a horrible job of managing their personnel resources. I know guys who have been dying to get on a tour for 3 years (myself included), that are just getting positions as GD (way out of trade) on the "closeout" tour, while their are guys being thrown into a 4th, 5th or 6th tour.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Nov 2010)

To say nothing of the toll taken by pre-deployment training. 

It speaks volumes about the weakness of our individual and collective training if work-up training lasts longer than the deployment.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Nov 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> To say nothing of the toll taken by pre-deployment training.
> 
> It speaks volumes about the weakness of our individual and collective training if work-up training lasts longer than the deployment.


Having gone through the "work up", I can give that portion of the whole cycle a resounding "F Minus".  It was way too long, and even though they called it a "Level 7" ex, it was, in my opinion, just a series of level 5 exercises, done simultaneously.  And there was zero "specific" training.

We had no training on the language, the culture or anything.  It was all "shoot 'em up, Tex!"


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Nov 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> To say nothing of the toll taken by pre-deployment training.
> 
> It speaks volumes about the weakness of our individual and collective training if work-up training lasts longer than the deployment.



Amen. If you need to catch up on a few missed items from IBTS, by all means do those. But re-qualifying on everything you just qualified on a few months ago is insane. Its not like once you get your CFTPO number, you instantly become a goldfish and forget what you did before.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Nov 2010)

To expand on my previous post, and a post I put up earlier (somewhere), I would offer that for a unit to "train up" for a specific mission in a specific theatre, and let's pretend that our army has been conducting combat operations there for oh, I don't know, four years, then we would need only to train up to level 5 - 7.  Two months, tops.  I mean, going into the hopper, units should be up to level 4 (sub-unit) for collective training.  From there, "unit" could be skipped and units could do level 5 and then 7.  Mix in some real training (eg: culture, language, etc), then we're off to the races.

I still find it hard to believe that after almost 9 years of continual operations in Afghanistan that we don't have a baseline of learning either Pashtun or Tajik as "points" in our PER system.  Oh, French and English are there, but a boy from the Prairies is more likely to have to interact in Pashtun or Tajik than in his second official language.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Nov 2010)

I have to echo the epic failure of the training cycle. I was recently asked to consider going back for a 3rd tour. As a reservist, I couldn't commit to the 9 months of training followed by 7 months of deployment. There's no way in hell that my employer would agree to that much time away. Maybe the 9 months, but certainly not the full bill.


----------



## pbi (14 Nov 2010)

As the guy who directly ran the Level 7 training for two years, I'm surprised and disappointed to read these comments. 


First, just to be clear, Level 7 means formation level training (Bde/equiv or above). An exercise that has Level 5  and Level 6 training audiences probably isn't really a Level 7, the way we have typically done things. It's probably a Level 5 or 6, or 5/6, with the Level 7 TA acting as some kind of EXCON. I know that this setup was tried at CMTC a couple of times (I visited both), but IMHO it never really worked properly, because the old and sound rule of "one Primary Training Audience" was being tinkered with.

 I'm surprised, because in our visits to interview the staff of each JTF(A) HQ after it had been in theatre for a while, and in debriefs from returning JTF(A) HQs, we got the message loud and clear that the Level 7  training was good, useful and most importantly prepared them for the operation. As well, we visited our peer training organizations in the UK (6 Div HQ and Land Warfare Centre) and the US Army (Battle Command Training Programme), and exchanged trainers with them, to benchmark the quality of what we were doing. (And were very pleasantly surprised to discover that we were well ahead of the UK, and in many areas at least as good or better than what US BCTP was doing). We were also visited by our peer organization in the USMC, who were very favourably impressed.

I'm disappointed, because our single focus was to try to do the best we possibly could as trainers to get the men and women in those HQs ready to go, so that the orders and plans that they developed would be useful, effective and helpful. We always believed that we were helping the soldier on the ground by training up the Level 7 HQ as well as we possibly could. On reading your observations, it seems as though the system might be failing the people in these HQs, not helping them.  If that is so, then b y extension it is failing the soldiers on the ground, who will bear the brunt of what these HQs do, or fail to do.

I'm not involved in that particular organization any more, but I'm still interested in how well it works. The model we built will, I hope, more or less stay in place as the way we train our Level 7 HQs from now on.

I really hope that in your debriefs, AARs, discussions with the ALLC guys, etc you will make clear exactly what was wrong, and what should be done to fix it. We used to pay very close and very detailed attention to all of that feedback, all the time.  In fact, we bugged the hell out of people to get it.  The system only gets better when it knows what's wrong.

Cheers


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Nov 2010)

Letter of mine in the _Toronto Star_ plus a bit more:

Afstan: “A training role is possible”
http://unambig.com/afstan-a-training-role-is-possible/

Mark  
Ottawa


----------



## CombatDoc (14 Nov 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> As the guy who directly ran the Level 7 training for two years, I'm surprised and disappointed to read these comments...
> 
> I'm surprised, because in our visits to interview the staff of each JTF(A) HQ after it had been in theatre for a while, and in debriefs from returning JTF(A) HQs, we got the message loud and clear that the Level 7  training was good, useful and most importantly prepared them for the operation. As well, we visited our peer training organizations in the UK (6 Div HQ and Land Warfare Centre) and the US Army (Battle Command Training Programme), and exchanged trainers with them, to benchmark the quality of what we were doing. (And were very pleasantly surprised to discover that we were well ahead of the UK, and in many areas at least as good or better than what US BCTP was doing). We were also visited by our peer organization in the USMC, who were very favourably impressed.
> 
> I'm disappointed, because our single focus was to try to do the best we possibly could as trainers to get the men and women in those HQs ready to go, so that the orders and plans that they developed would be useful, effective and helpful. We always believed that we were helping the soldier on the ground by training up the Level 7 HQ as well as we possibly could. On reading your observations, it seems as though the system might be failing the people in these HQs, not helping them.  If that is so, then b y extension it is failing the soldiers on the ground, who will bear the brunt of what these HQs do, or fail to do.


Let me be a bit of a dissenting opinion to the majority opinion expressed here.  Everyone talks about the training cycle being too long and lacking enough added value - to that I would say "yes and no".  Yes, it is long at around 7-8 months of predeployment training for a 7 month mission.  And yes, the value of the training may be inconsistent or not readily appreciated by all.  But from the standpoint of getting all the required IBTS and TMST "ticks in the box" plus obtaining any extra specialist training, 6+ months is barely enough time to fit everything in.  For example, medical folks in addition to  IBTS/TMST also need various recertifications (ACLS, ATLS, PALS, AIME) as well as trade specific training (e.g. joint theatre trauma system, blood banking). The CF senior leadership has set 6 months as the "predeployment training" length, but for the non-combat arms units (e.g. NSE, HSS, MP, ASIC) comprised of folks from across the country, this time period flies by.

The current Maple Guardian level exercises are a good introduction for many HQs to the higher level coord/planning that is required in theatre, complexity that does not exist at the unit level.  Add in the reality that many of the HQ staff (i.e. jnr officers) lack significant time in trade and staff officer experience, and it is my experience that the level 7 trng is vital preparation for theatre.  Is it perfect, no, of course not.  But I would much rather deploy with this shared experience than not.  As one Colonel noted, the best way to "take care of the troops" is to maximize their chances of returning from deployment, even if this means that training requirements will cut  into their family time.  The challenge is to ensure that the training benefit outweighs all the other costs (financial, time away from home, opportunity costs, etc).


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2010)

The US administration is expressing a truely frightening lack of perspective and common sense:

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2010/11/14/we-have-to-assemble-a-coherent-narrative-for-afghanistan/



> *We have to assemble a coherent narrative for Afghanistan*
> BY HERSCHEL SMITH
> 16 hours, 13 minutes ago
> From The Washington Post:
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (15 Nov 2010)

> If you’re looking for leadership in this administration, you won’t find it. Instead, they are working hard to “assemble a coherent narrative.”


Wasn't that John Travolta in _Basic_?  -- "we just have to tell the story right." 
Hopefully, that's not where the Obama administration got its public administration education.


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Nov 2010)

A very comprehensive post by BruceR. at _Flit_ with interesting input by real experts--have a look:

Expert feedback on ISAF and Raziq: "Good program, good idea, wrong guy, place and time"
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_11_15.html#006803



> A little while ago I wrote a little bit about the decision to rely more heavily on Abdul Raziq and his Spin Boldak-based "police" to keep the peace in the Kandahar City area, and some of the issues that raised.
> http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_11_02.html#006798
> I shopped it around to four people of my acquaintance with real experience with Kandahar, and elicited their responses to this development. None of them were very positive, but some of their reasons might surprise you. It's all after the fold.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman (16 Nov 2010)

Article Link  



> *Tories confirm Afghan mission details*
> Canadian military trainers to remain from 2011-14 for non-combat work
> 
> Last Updated: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 .
> ...


Not really news, but interesting that the announcement was made by DFAIT (Cannon) and not Defence (MacKay).


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Nov 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Article Link  Not really news, but interesting that the announcement was made by DFAIT (Cannon) and not Defence (MacKay).


Cannon's also been taking questions in the HoC instead of MacKay as well - check Hansard here, here and here (meanwhile, MacKay dealt with an F35 question here).  It's been noticed by others:


> Peter MacKay was once Canada’s star contender to lead the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a military alliance of Western nations.
> 
> He will again head to the NATO summit in Lisbon later this week, but the chastened reality for the defence minister was on display for all to see Monday. He was the one sitting in the shadow of Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon.
> 
> ...



The government has been "civilianizing" the face of the mission in a number of ways for almost 2 years now - more examples here, here and here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Nov 2010)

And the official news release:


> The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, and the Honourable Beverley J. Oda, Minister of International Cooperation, today announced a new role for Canada’s engagement in Afghanistan that will build on significant progress in the areas of security, diplomacy, human rights and development.
> 
> “Building on strengths and accomplishments over the past years, Canada is committed to helping build a more secure, stable and self-sufficient Afghanistan that is no longer a safe haven for terrorists,” said Minister Cannon. “The combat mission will end in 2011. As we continue to work alongside the Afghan people and the international community, Canada will continue to play an important role in supporting efforts toward a better future for all Afghans.”
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Nov 2010)

Bringing divers things together and calling out someone perhaps better suited to be a baker:

Fighting the good fight for Afghans–and all of us
http://unambig.com/fighting-the-good-fight-for-afghans-and-all-of-us/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Nov 2010)

Well, that didn't take long....


> .... The latest Canadian Press/Harris Decima survey asked about the Canadian mission in Afghanistan
> 
> According to Senior Vice-President Doug Anderson “At this point in time, Canadians are split over whether to leave troops in Afghanistan beyond the end of the combat mission. While few feel that the combat mission should be extended, there is clearly some support for Canadian troops continuing to play some role.”
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Nov 2010)

F... polls.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Nov 2010)

Brian Platt outside the wire in Kandahar City--an excellent post 
http://ubyssey.ca/afghanistan/2010/11/12/kandahar/
with many photos at his _Ubyssey blog_,  _From UBC to Kabul_:
http://ubyssey.ca/afghanistan/


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Nov 2010)

Words are indeed without meaning for this country’s politicians--Jack Granatstein, at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute’s _3Ds Blog_, cuts through more mindless political spin, this from the Liberals:

The Peacekeeping Mythology Never Dies
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=43



> It is a great and good thing that the Liberals are supporting the new training mission in Afghanistan. The terms of their support, however, are shamelessly disingenuous. Yesterday on CBC-TV’s “Power and Politics” the Grits’ Dominic LeBlanc talked about how the training role was in the traditional Canadian mode, redolent of our long proud peacekeeping tradition. And that’s why Michael Ignatieff could support it.  Blah, blah, blah. This is straight-out pandering to the soft-headed Canadian belief that all we should ever do is keep the peace, preferably with a blue beret firmly fixed on our soldiers’ heads.
> 
> But is training equal to peacekeeping? No, it most certainly is not. In the first place, Afghanistan is a state at war, and there is no peace to keep. Then, Canadian soldiers will be training one side in that war, the ANA and ANP, how best to fight the other side, the Taliban...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Nov 2010)

Norman Spector  points to this comment by Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/train+troops+from+behind+wire/3828207/story.html 
(The important bit, to which Spector refers, is *highlighted*.)



> You can't train troops from 'behind the wire'
> *If we are going to stay in Afghanistan past the 2011 exit deadline to continue helping the country's soldiers, we have to stay for real -- and that is going to cost lives*
> 
> By Colin Kenny, Citizen Special
> ...




Others have already, publicly corrected Kenny's nonsense about training 'behind the wire' being impossible. There is, in fact, a lot we can do 'behind the wire' that will have important, indeed vital impacts on Afghanistan.

But, the key point, the highlighted point is that Prime Minister Harper is, evidently, persuaded that Canada's *vital interests* require us to support the USA in this – despite the fact that they *failed* us and Afghanistan and their own interests in 2006/07.


----------



## GAP (18 Nov 2010)

> But, the key point, the highlighted point is that Prime Minister Harper is, evidently, persuaded that Canada's vital interests require us to support the USA in this – despite the fact that they failed us and Afghanistan and their own interests in 2006/07.



That doesn't count.....they're bigger than us and more important......just ask them.... :


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Nov 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> That doesn't count.....they're bigger than us and more important......just ask them.... :




I quite agree. My _problem_ with the USA is a profound lack of strategic vision. It, that all important strategic vision, has been wholly and completely absent since, at least, 2000. Effectively, there has been little _strategy_ since Eisenhower and none at all since Reagan. America has not come to grips with the facts (and they are facts) that:

1. The USSR imploded:
2. Russia really doesn't matter - but it need not be gratuitously poked in the eye, just for sport;
3. China is on a tear; and
4. The _Clash of Civilizations_, despite our _wish_ that Islam not be the enemy, explains what we see and we must deal with that.

The _Pentagon_, especially, is broken. But Ike's _military-industrial complex_ in general, and, indeed, the Congress, are broken, too. They are, all, inept, corrupt and deleterious to America and the West. Americans are engaged in _culture wars_, that Goldwater _et al_ began over 50 years ago and that has taken and is, still, taking their "eyes off the ball." It is sad and we are going to get sideswiped when, not if, America makes more and more strategically bad choices in this decade.

I do not see any interest in either of the major parties to stop the senseless _culture wars_ and rebuild America; and independents, as Michael Bloomberg just said, cannot win.

</rant>


----------



## GAP (18 Nov 2010)

Now it's my turn to agree....you just put into words my impressions of the path of the US.


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Nov 2010)

An excellent piece of research by BruceR. at _Flit_, worth a careful read:

I hear Mazar in spring is even nicer than Kabul in winter
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_11_17.html#006807



> Matthew Fisher continues to perform the sin of actual journalism by trying to pin down people on where Canadian troops in Afghanistan post-2011 will be going and what they'll be doing. This was telling:
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Late+decision+send+trainers+means+rush+Afghan+mission/3837781/story.html
> 
> _As Canada is insisting that most of its trainers will be in or near the capital, which is already awash with trainers from other countries, there is immense interest in what specific training tasks Canada is to be assigned by NATO and how its trainers will be shoehorned into already-crowded bases in the capital._
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Nov 2010)

I think BruceR is reading too much into it. My guess is that this week, in Portugal, Minister MacKay will tell NATO/ISAF what to tell us to do. If we decide that we are going to train computer engineering officers and kosher cooks then, _*Presto!*_, computer engineering and kosher cooking will, suddenly, be top of ISAF's list of priorities for training.

We have earned, and had bloody well better use, our right to a _caveat_ or two. We will teach the Afghans whatever in hell we want to teach and NATO/ISAF will be suitably grateful for our efforts. Maybe we should start with some leadership, operations/tactics and management training for the very top levels of NATO/ISAF; that may do the most good.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Nov 2010)

I would offer that if we are there to train, then we will need to send trainers, not necessarily soldiers from the field force.  We need to send people who know the training system, and to train them to train themselves.  

They will have to understand how training an individual is different from training a collective group.

So, having said that, we're going to fuck it up and send over soldiers who are great at combat, but not necessarily good at teaching.  (That's not a slight at them, we just have to make sure we send the right people, that's all)


But part of me says "we won't".  This will become a "less sexy" Goat Rodeo, and the military tourism will perhaps abate, but for those of us who care, well, we damned well get it right.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Nov 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I quite agree. My _problem_ with the USA is a profound lack of strategic vision. It, that all important strategic vision, has been wholly and completely absent since, at least, 2000. Effectively, there has been little _strategy_ since Eisenhower and none at all since Reagan. ......
> 
> 4. The _Clash of Civilizations_, despite our _wish_ that Islam not be the enemy, explains what we see and we must deal with that.
> 
> ...




The problem as I see it is that the Clash of Civilizations is happening between Fox-Palin and MSNBC-van den Heuvel.  

You are dead right about the US not being consistent - but surely it has ever been thus.  There system is designed to create instability and the more "polarized" their domestic politics the more unstable and unreliable they become (ie unpredictable).

A Serbian Canadian who was upset about a USAF(Res) Fighter Pilot as President of the US and supported Obama because he wasn't Bush, was horrified to discover that Obama reminded of home once he had been elected.  I told him not to worry.  If the Yanks don't like him they can trim his coat tails in two years and get rid of him in four.  That horrified him even more because he couldn't figure our how you make plans with that kind of uncertainty.

I guess it takes a little learning before folks discover that freedom is messy.


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Nov 2010)

Meanwhile in Canada it now seems the rule for politicians, pundits and the public that the Army really doesn't do combat if the dead go over 100, 
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/005283.html
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006034.html  (so much for PM Harper)
unless it truly is a situation of clear and supreme national interest (or else a clear and convincing victory is won with rapidity).

We may criticize the Americans all we want but they do not have the peacekeeping-obsessed culture Canada has in spades:
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=43

Nor do the Brits.  In fact I venture that "peacekeeping" has almost zero resonance in either country (and very little in Australia);  Canadians have been brainwashed, in large measure by our own governments.

Anyone want to bet that any Canadian government will put the Army into combat during the next decade, if not longer, even should a situation arise that might well make it seem the right thing to do?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Nov 2010)

Where Canada and Denmark led…
http://unambig.com/where-canada-and-denmark-led/



> …the US Marines follow:
> 
> *Marines Sending in the Tanks*
> ...
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2010)

Don't like the new mission?  Ceasefire.ca has an online petition where you can send an electronic letter to the PM and MPs:


> *Don't Extend Canada's Military Mission in Afghanistan*
> 
> Tell Stephen Harper, other party leaders, and your own MP that you do not support the proposed training mission for the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. Send your letter, right away ....


It says you can personalize the letter - wonder if you can personalize it so much that it says you support the mission?  That would be just awful....  >


----------



## Big Red (20 Nov 2010)

*Sarcasm on* So now that we are committed to a training mission we can expect to be expanding our Pashtu and Dari language schools within the CF?


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2010)

Big Red said:
			
		

> *Sarcasm on* So now that we are committed to a training mission we can expect to be expanding our Pashtu and Dari language schools within the CF?


100 % more than the expansion we've seen since the start of the war.....


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Nov 2010)

NATO Summit: CF in Afstan until 2014/ISAF and the Afghans
http://unambig.com/nato-summit-cf-in-afstan-until-2014isaf-and-the-afghans/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Nov 2010)

Spooky/SOF *speculation* from Tom Ricks:

Report: Canadian military leasing Russian Mi-17 helos in Afghanistan
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/23/report_canadian_military_leasing_russian_mi_17_helos_in_afghanistan



> I remember how I used to listen to various NATO officials complain about how member nations were not sending enough helicopters to Afghanistan. Now it appears that the chickens have come home to roost: The Canadian media is reporting that the Canadian Ministry of Defence has quietly leased a bunch of Russian helicopters to use in southern Afghanistan.
> http://www.globalnews.ca/world/story.html?id=3865054
> 
> My first thought was this was to fool the locals. But I don't think it would fool the Taliban, who know their Russian helicopters. Canadian Navy Lt. Kelly Rozenberg-Payne said that Canadian forces in Afghanistan simply needed some additional vertical lift: "The (operational) tempo within the air wing became very great and it was just assessed by commanders on the ground that they needed additional platforms to help move troops around," she said.
> ...



Seems pretty unlikely to me--far too risky for this gov't.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GK .Dundas (24 Nov 2010)

All too true this would require Mr Harper to have a pair .Come to think of it that pretty well describes both sides of the house .Not since the retirement of Deborah Grey at any rate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Nov 2010)

Training the Afghans: Let's have some _realistic_ expectations, please

I don't k now where this nonsense originates but the papers have been full of it ever since we began changing our national minds about Afghanistan. Modern, sophisticated armies require modern, sophisticated people: call me 100, maybe 500 years, when Afghanistan might have a modern  sophisticated population, and we can send the 'right' trainers. Until then we are going to train third world people to be barely adequate third world 'soldiers' - or we are going to fail, miserably.

Most of the 195± countries in the world that have armies at all have totally inadequate ones. That's why a few countries like Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark and so on are always being begged by the UN for technical and logistical troops and for air support.

Whoever thinks that we can, in any of your lifetimes, make the Afghans into modern, sophisticated soldiers with good logistics, command and control and air support is smoking too much of the stuff they grow over there.


Edit: typo  :-[


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Nov 2010)

I think the author of the piece that Edward cites should have done some research. Canada has been providing a gunner OMLT for several years and has had more than a little success. If the enemy can mortar and rocket our FOBS let along KAF, the ANA can be trained to be competent gunners. Petard has more and better details than I do, but I am aware of a few of the issues our people have addressed successfully. By the way, the last episode of Combat School showed an ANA D30 battery firing, supposedly in support of M Coy 3 RCR.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Nov 2010)

In case you're interested, here's the Bloc's motion in the House of Commons - debate started yesterday ....


> Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ) moved:  That this House condemn the government’s decision to unilaterally extend the Canadian mission in Afghanistan to 2014, whereby it is breaking two promises it made to Canadians, one made on May 10, 2006, in this House and repeated in the 2007 Throne Speech, that any military deployment would be subject to a vote in Parliament, and another made on January 6, 2010, that the mission in Afghanistan would become a strictly civilian commitment after 2011, without any military presence beyond what would be needed to protect the embassy.


and you can read the debate here and here.  Glutton for punishment?  52 pg PDF of just the motion debate downloadable here.


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Nov 2010)

Afstan: Two must-reads from BruceR.
http://unambig.com/afstan-two-must-reads-from-brucer/

The disgraceful failure of our major media’s Afghan mission/Coalition crazy/Bob Rae Update
http://unambig.com/the-disgraceful-failure-of-our-major-medias-afghan-mission/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Nov 2010)

Further to this post on the US Marines sending tanks to Afstan,

Where Canada and Denmark led…
http://unambig.com/where-canada-and-denmark-led/

the conclusion of a challenging article by a US Army officer:

Tanks, But No Tanks
Why heavy armor won’t save Afghanistan.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/24/tanks_but_no_tanks?page=0,0



> …
> It may be counterintuitive, but we actually need less armor, and we need to be more flexible and unpredictable. Instead of dictating that no unit can leave its base unless in an MRAP or MATV, we must allow them to use Humvees, all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and ruggedized pickup trucks when appropriate. Knowing their movements are being watched at all times, units need to use deception, such as varying the time of day and night they move, their routes of travel, and the types of vehicles in which they conduct missions, to keep the insurgents constantly guessing. Insurgents cannot possibly booby-trap and watch every road, trail, and wadi in Afghanistan but they can and do hammer us on the few roads that will support armored vehicles.
> 
> This is a very unconventional war being waged in the most difficult terrain possible, and we are responding very conventionally. Instead of allowing such ingenuity and its associated risk, the coalition’s default response has been to add more armor and widgets to ever larger vehicles that are the very antithesis of basic counterinsurgency operations.
> ...



I cannot imagine a Canadian officer writing so bluntly in our media.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (26 Nov 2010)

He hits the nail on the head....change the focus


----------



## George Wallace (26 Nov 2010)

This really jumped out to me:

"....... my coalition colleagues often asked how then I proposed to "defeat" the IED. My initial response was that the question was wrong: We should not be trying to defeat the IED. Rather, we should be working to defeat the insurgency that plants them. "


----------



## George Wallace (26 Nov 2010)

An interesting comment here, in reference to Haiti, but should one that should be remembered by all Canadians when looking at our efforts in Afghanistan.  



> Nigel Fisher of the United Nations urges Canadians to not give up.
> 
> "In a sense, stay with us because you don't turn around [a country] overnight."


 LINK


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Nov 2010)

Firing for effect on our media:

One type of Afghan progress; or, an agent in place?/Don Martin Update/Journalism Upperdate
http://unambig.com/one-type-of-afghan-progress-or-an-agent-of-influence/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Nov 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> An interesting comment here, in reference to Haiti, but should one that should be remembered by all Canadians when looking at our efforts in Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good point - look at how long this one has been going on between two fellow members of NATO.  But most elected governments think (at best) in terms of years, not decades (or generations).


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Nov 2010)

Bloc motion condemning new AFG mission crashes & burns...


> The Liberals helped the Conservatives defeat a motion Tuesday that would have condemned the government for its decision to extend the Afghan mission until 2014 without consulting Parliament.
> 
> The Bloc Quebecois motion had the support of the NDP, but it failed to pass, going down 209-81.
> 
> Ahead of the vote, Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe said the motion was meant to show that Prime Minister Stephen Harper had "lied" to MPs. The Bloc and the NDP have accused the Conservatives of breaking a commitment to put future military deployments in Afghanistan to a vote in the House of Commons ....


More from Postmedia News here - the NDP's response, via e-mail, attached.


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Dec 2010)

Afstan and Canada’s National Whatever, or, “Hopeless, hopeless, hopeless”
http://unambig.com/afstan-and-canadas-national-whatever-and-hopeless-hopeless-hopeless/



> Here’s how the _NY Times_ gives context in a news story on President Obama’s recent quick visit to the troops at Bagram...
> 
> Fair enough I’d say. Now compare with what appears in the _Globe and Mail’s_, er, report; I’ve emphasized certain words...
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2010)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is, I think, the situation throughout the American led West, even, I suspect, amongst a solid majority of Americans, themselves:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/no-one-believes-in-afghanistan-any-more-eu-leader-in-wikileaks-cable/article1825642/ 


> ‘No one believes in Afghanistan any more:’ EU leader in WikiLeaks cable
> 
> Brussels, Belgium— The Associated Press
> Published Sunday, Dec. 05, 2010
> ...




Canadians *believed* in the Afghanistan mission in the autumn of 2001 when they gathered, in numbers never seen before or since, on Parliament Hill to demand that Canada “do something” to stand with the USA. The result was that then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien sent a battle group to Kandahar in 2002, then to Kabul and then his successor, Paul Martin, sent our forces to Kandahar again, where they remain for a few more months. Canadians, not just politicians, bureaucrats, soldiers and the _commentariat_ *believed* in Afghanistan and in what we, Canada – not just the CF, tried to accomplish. The belief has vanished; it is gone from Canada, from Europe, from Asia and, I think from America, too. We agreed to the training mission “out of defence to the United States,” we agreed not because we, Canadians – including many (most?) Canadians inside the CF, think it will do any good but because our government fears the repurcussions of being first country to thumb its nose at President Obama's war.

It's a helluva way to run a war.


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Dec 2010)

Actually the Dutch did it first .  Though they are thinking of coming back in a training role too, and President Obama has made an ask:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/11/us_asks_the_netherlands_for_se.php

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Actually the Dutch did it first .  Though they are thinking of coming back in a training role too, and President Obama has made an ask:
> http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/11/us_asks_the_netherlands_for_se.php
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa




I thought - but it may have just been another _brain fart_ - that we announced first, and then were, equally, the first to renounce our *principled* position.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Dec 2010)

All over the Afghan map
http://unambig.com/all-over-the-afghan-map/



> Today’s essential Afghan reading (with apologies to BruceR. at _Flit_),
> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Today%27s+essential%22+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.snappingturtle.net%2F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a
> from a very interesting post by C.J. Chivers at a _NY Times_ blog, "At War":
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Dec 2010)

Progressives, war, and what happens if NATO pulls out of Afstan
http://unambig.com/progressives-war-and-what-happens-if-nato-pulls-out-of-afstan/



> Progressives (e.g., our NDP) have been mostly against the war for quite some time. Sadly a lot of conservatives, now that the going has got tough, want out too. Some very pertinent points in an excellent, and wider, article this July by Sebastian Junger...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Dec 2010)

Afstan: “Bouhammer Predictions of the Surge Assessment”
http://unambig.com/afstan-bouhammer-predictions-of-the-surge-assessment/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Dec 2010)

Excerpts from a very thoughtful post by BruceR. at _Flit_, worth a full read:

Additional Afghan reading: Junger
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_12_14.html#006813



> I still haven’t seen Restrepo yet, but Sebastian Junger’s War was brilliant, I thought, as a portrait of young men at war. His article here on the response he received is also very much worth reading…
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-21/sebastian-junger-on-war-and-restrepo-in-afghanistan/
> 
> …I don’t understand why anyone would assume that the Tajiks and Hazara and Kabuli Pashtuns who still hate the Taliban will not fight for their homes if we left. They’re not going to be so easy to roll the second time, and the fact the ANA make poor doorkickers in our concept of ops does not mean they’d do just fine against similarly armed Pashtun insurgents, especially if we left a SOF/FID/CAS/Fires thumb on the pro-government side of the scales.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## naks (17 Dec 2010)

I'm just curious as to peoples thoughts on the matter. We've been told that the CF would be pulled out a while ago, the date always changes, and promises are always broken. What do people honestly think about this matter? How much longer will we be there? My guess.. atleast another 5 years. Thoughts?


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Dec 2010)

Find a Magic 8 Ball. Ask it the question and shake. The answer you get is the best guess on where we're gonna be after 1 Jul 11.


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Dec 2010)

Viking update:

Afstan: Swedes hanging tough
http://unambig.com/afstan-swedes-hanging-tough/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Dec 2010)

From Terry Glavin:

As I Was Saying: Get Real. 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/12/as-i-was-saying-get-real.html



> Most recently here,
> http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/12/afghanistan-third-way-imperialism-or.html
> which I was then pleased to find Christopher Hitchens reiterating here,
> http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2010/12/christopher-hitchens-on-critical.html
> ...



A truly eclectic meeting of minds.  But achieving their ends will take an awful lot of neo-imperial twisting of Afghan arms, primarily by the US.  And, I suspect, at least tacit Pakistani acquiescence.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Dec 2010)

Who's killing the civilians (a story our media persistently downplay)?  From Adrian MacNair:

Devil Is In The Details
http://unambig.com/devil-is-in-the-details/



> Civilian casualties in Afghanistan are up by 20 per cent from the first 10 months of 2010, compared with the same period in 2009, according to the United Nations. But here’s the important part:
> 
> "The report concluded that the number of civilian casualties attributable to insurgents increased by 25 percent during the 10-month period. It said insurgent groups were responsible for killing or injuring 4,738 civilians during that period, while 742 were killed or wounded by Afghan and international troops – a drop of 18 percent..."



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Dec 2010)

Well, well, well:

Canadian trainers likely to be sent across Afghanistan
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101231/canadian-trainers-in-afghanistan-101231/



> The Canadian Forces is rushing to draw up a list of military trainers to send to Afghanistan once Canada's combat mission ends next summer, but senior officers say training positions in the safer regions of the country are already growing few and far between.
> 
> The federal government announced earlier this year that up to 950 Canadian soldiers would participate in a three-year mission to train the nascent Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police force.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Dec 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Well, well, well:
> 
> Canadian trainers likely to be sent across Afghanistan
> http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101231/canadian-trainers-in-afghanistan-101231/
> ...




If we do not get what we sought ("inside the wire" in the Kabul area) then I recommend we walk away; NATO and Afghanistan can screw themselves, not us; not again; not after 2006/07. Obama needs us more than we need him or NATO or both combined.


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Jan 2011)

ER, I agree if we are going to get the shaft once again from NATO we should tell them to get stuffed and come home.  We have done more than our NATO share.  Let some of the other lazy bastards who occupy seats in Brussels take up the slack for a change.


----------



## HItorMiss (1 Jan 2011)

I strongly disagree

What are we Cartman from South Park? "Screw you guys I am going home!" what are we a spoiled child throwing a tantrum because daddy wont give us what we want. We committed to a mission that is the end of it now we will do that mission.

Anything else is pure childishness!


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jan 2011)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> I strongly disagree
> 
> What are we Cartman from South Park? "Screw you guys I am going home!" what are we a spoiled child throwing a tantrum because daddy wont give us what we want. We committed to a mission that is the end of it now we will do that mission.
> 
> Anything else is pure childishness!




We made, or at least the government through the media have led us to believe we made a _*deal*_ with Obama and NATO. In exchange for not withdrawing, completely, as planned and announced, we would stay on, in a training role, "behind the wire," in the Kabul area. Now, IF the report Mark posted is accurate NATO might be trying for force a change on us - to make the Canadian mission more difficult to support, especially from from the administration and logistics areas. It is not "childish" to insist that NATO live up to its deals. I, personally, don't give a sweet rat's ass about what Afghanistan or NATO or the military commanders on the ground need or think they need; our participation in the Afghanistan mission is 95% political and only 5% military and the political aspects must prevail 100% of the time. This looks to me and smells to me like political chicanery and we have much, much more important political issues in play than kowtowing to Obama or NATO. We need to stand up for ourselves and if that means spitting in Afghanistan's, NATO's and Obama's eyes, all at the same time, so be it. The mission is irrelevant.


----------



## Loachman (2 Jan 2011)

My personal opinion of NATO has been dropping as a result of, but not quite as much as, my declining opinion of its European nation-members. I would favour a formal Anglosphere Alliance (UK, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) as there is far more in common in terms of history, culture, and outlook over continued membership in NATO.

As for the issue of "doing our share", I believe that we will only be able to claim that when we have a military that is proportional to that of the US based upon our comparative populations, and have the same proportional representation in Afghanistan, and remain in theatre, in an active role, at least as long.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jan 2011)

Loachman said:
			
		

> My personal opinion of NATO has been dropping as a result of, but not quite as much as, my declining opinion of its European nation-members. I would favour a formal Anglosphere Alliance (UK, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) as there is far more in common in terms of history, culture, and outlook over continued membership in NATO.
> 
> As for the issue of "doing our share", I believe that we will only be able to claim that when we have a military that is proportional to that of the US based upon our comparative populations, and have the same proportional representation in Afghanistan, and remain in theatre, in an active role, at least as long.




I do not believe we could or even should ever try to _match_ the US military. Our foreign policy goals do not require such forces and, in my guesstimation, the US cannot sustain the current levels of spending much farther into the 21st century. (Of the half dozen or so countries spending 4-5% of GDP on defence, as the US does (4.3%), only one, Singapore, has the economic muscle to continue to do so for a long time.) 

My proposal is that, initially, we should _match_, in defence spending as a percentage of GDP, countries like India (2.6%), Britain (2.5%) and France (2.3%) for a few years (say 10) before settling into a near permanent _groove_ alongside Taiwan (2.1%), Malaysia (2.0%) and Australia (1.9%). Spending 2% of GDP on defence would require defence spending to rise, quickly, by 60% or $12.5 Billion, before settling down into a 2%, steady state, level with spending growing from about $35 Billion per year, year after year, decade after decade, starting about 2025.


----------



## observor 69 (2 Jan 2011)

Wouldn't that require a government prepared to do a rational objective apolitical analysis , and prepared to pay the political price ?

Ya it's a rhetorical question


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jan 2011)

This from CP:


> The Harper government has quietly shut down the powerful cabinet committee that steered the mission in Afghanistan.
> 
> The decision to dismantle the committee came Tuesday, after Prime Minister Stephen Harper's minor cabinet shuffle, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> ...



The now-cached version of the page dealing with the committee here (or screen capture at Scribd.com here) says this was the Committee's job:


> The Cabinet Committee on Afghanistan has the mandate to consider diplomatic, defence, development and security issues related to Canada’s mission in Afghanistan.


So if the committee's job is done, the mission in Afghanistan won't need any DDD/Security "consideration" anymore?  I know political oversight will continue, but am I the only one reading this to mean that the mission has just become a *WAY* lower priority for the government?


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Jan 2011)

More here:

Afstan to the back burner
http://unambig.com/afstan-to-the-back-burner/



> Our government, i.e. the prime minister, has basically lost interest (if they ever really had much)–even while the CF have some six more months of combat...
> 
> Actually it’s been clear for three years or so that Mr Harper had lost any real commitment to the military mission:
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Jan 2011)

Well, well, well:

Dutch government wants a return to Afstan…
http://unambig.com/dutch-government-wants-a-return-to-afstan/



> …to train police...
> 
> "…The Dutch trainers would be deployed under the auspices of the European Police Training Mission (EUPOL)…
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Jan 2011)

Good luck with that, General Caldwell....



> The top commander of NATO's training mission in Afghanistan says Canadian military trainers are skilled and experienced and the alliance needs them especially in Kandahar, an option Prime Minister Stephen Harper has ruled out.
> 
> U.S. Army Lt.-Gen. William B. Caldwell made the remarks in an online paper published by the The Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.
> 
> ...


  More from The Canadian Press here.



> NATO's top training commander in Afghanistan says Canadian military instructors are needed in Kandahar, not the safer confines of Kabul, where the Harper government says the extended non-combat mission be redeployed until 2014.
> 
> U.S. Army Lt.-Gen. William Caldwell, in an online paper for the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute, praised Canada's efforts to train the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police as "invaluable." Additional Canadian trainers, he wrote, are especially needed in the Taliban-infested Kandahar region that 2,800 Canadian combat troops are to leave this year.
> 
> ...


  More from Postmedia News here.


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Jan 2011)

Note authors of report are quite conservative:

Is the tide turning in southern Afghanistan?
http://blogs.reuters.com/afghanistan/2011/01/11/is-the-tide-turning-in-southern-afghanistan/



> The American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for the Study of War  has a new report out
> http://www.understandingwar.org/report/defining-success-afghanistan
> that says rather unequivocally that the United States is starting to turn the war around in southern Afghanistan following the surge. Since the deployment of U.S. Marines to Helmand in 2009 and the launch of an offensive there followed by operations in Kandahar, the Taliban has effectively lost all its main safe havens in the region, authors Frederick  W. Kagan and Kimberly Kagan argue.
> 
> ...



*Update thought*: It's perhaps telling that there appears to be no mention of the CF's work at Kandahar in the report.  There is this, p.29:



> ...
> Taliban efforts to encircle and penetrate Kandahar had gone almost unchecked before 2010.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Jan 2011)

On TVO's "The Agenda", Jan. 10.  Well done, esp. about the Canadian media and how the country now reacts to casualties.  Take the time to view  it, please:

Matthew Fisher: A Year in Afghanistan 
http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.woa?videoid?746480670001

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Jan 2011)

Very interesting:

'A Decisive Transformation'
Berlin Exudes Optimism in Extending Afghanistan Mandate
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,739140,00.html#ref=nlint



> German Chancellor Angela Merkel's cabinet is confident that improvements are just around the corner in Afghanistan. The government in Berlin agreed on an extension of the mandate authorizing its presence in the war-torn country by one year on Wednesday -- and hope was in no short supply.
> 
> The international mission in Afghanistan, the German government is convinced, will see significant changes in coming years. On Wednesday, the cabinet of German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed on a mandate that would extend by one year the presence of Bundeswehr troops operating in Afghanistan. "Overall, the international engagement in Afghanistan will undergo decisive transformation in the years 2011 to 2014," the seven-page document approved by the cabinet reads hopefully.
> 
> ...



And now for gloom:

AfPak's Strategic Blinders
One month after the Obama administration's strategic review of the Afghan war, it's become clear that there's little willingness to change what increasingly looks like a failure in the making. 
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/11/afpaks_strategic_blinders?page=0,0

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Jan 2011)

The beginning of a real end:

Canada hands over command of Provincial Reconstruction Team to Americans
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/canada-hands-over-command-provincial-reconstruction-team-americans-20110112-074416-260.html



> Leadership of Kandahar's aid and development contingent passed Wednesday from Canadian to American hands, the first in a series of such handovers in the coming months as Canada winds down its combat mission in Afghanistan.
> 
> Senior American civilian official Ben Moeling replaced Canada's top diplomat in Kandahar, Tim Martin, as the head honcho of Kandahar's Provincial Reconstruction Team. Martin had held the post since last August, following stints as ambassador to Paraguay and Argentina.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Foxhound (14 Jan 2011)

The latest from Jack Layton.  An article in the Globe and Mail.


> The Harper government’s plan to deploy 1,000 Canadian troops to build up Afghanistan’s army will end up training Taliban insurgents, Jack Layton says.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Jan 2011)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Note authors of report are quite conservative



Yes they are - but generally, I feel their report is accurate.  This comes from my reading on the insurgency along with my personal experience.  "Pop-Centric" COIN is great for dealing with subversion, but that's only half the equation.  There are American Brigades where we used to have a company.

As well, insurgencies thrive on strong leaders who can deliver more real, tangible things than the government.  Rural Pashtuns don't care about democracy and education nor do they care about Emirates and global jihad.  They want to be able to farm have a nice scooter.  The Taliban can't provide that better than the government if SOF continually takes thier mid/low level leadership.

Finally, the Pashtun Taliban couldn't even take some of the Northern areas through conventional invasion between 1995-2001.  To have them now all of the sudden subvert an area dominated by another ethnic group that has loyalty to other warlords and historical emnity against the Taliban seems to be a stretch.  Terrorist attacks are not generally a sign of an effective insurgency.



> *Update thought*: It's perhaps telling that there appears to be no mention of the CF's work at Kandahar in the report.  There is this, p.29:



They say "almost", which is about accurate.  As another report on Kandahar from that institute states, Canada's force was so small and was essentially fixed in Zharei-Panjwayi that it couldn't do much about the end-run from the North in Arghandab District after Mullah Naqib died.


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Jan 2011)

At the CDFAI's _3Ds Blog_:

Jack Granatstein:

Layton’s Spurious Comparisons of Wars Past and Present
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=77

Me:

Layton’s Latest on Afghanistan
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=76

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## nuclearzombies (17 Jan 2011)

Thanks for those links Mark. Very interesting blog...... 
Good thread overall, I've learned more reading here than any 2 minute CNN mindwash. Most folks I know don't know much beyond what the media tells them. 

 :2c:- I had thought we had more troops overseas than what we do...wow.
 :2c:- I not only hope we continue our involvment with ISAF, I wish we could do more. I actually do believe that we should participate in a longer term effort to rub out losers like the Taliban :gunner:
 :2c:- Although I too am frustrated with *some* nations apparent lack of participation in regards to NATO, I say screw 'em and let's focus our contribution. If folks want to play Operation Head In The Sand, then that's their own silly fault. It's our fault too for being so damned reliable.


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Jan 2011)

Good piece in _NY Times'_ "At War" blog; if only our cheapskate media had that real "portfolio" (see end):

Embedistan: Outside the Wire, Off the Message
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/embedistan-outside-the-wire-off-the-message/?emc=eta1



> AUSTIN, Tex. — At the end of his trip to Kabul in late March, President Obama declared after a high-profile military offensive that the Marines had pushed the Taliban out of the Afghan region of Marja, one of its major strongholds. But even as the president spoke those words, the Marines in Marja were telling a different story to an embedded reporter: The Taliban had retaken the momentum in much of Marja and stymied the troops’ strategy to win hearts and minds. Soon, high-ranking American officials began to acknowledge that Marja was not going nearly as well as hoped.
> 
> There are justified criticisms of embedding with the military, mainly that articles written from operations with Marines and soldiers cannot possibly include the perspective of the Afghans who bear the brunt of the fighting and sometimes wrongly become the targets of troops themselves. Even among the self-selected group of locals who are willing to talk to troops, and reporters accompanying them, those who have strong feelings against the occupation often won’t say that. In many cases the only way to get those perspectives in bloody war zones is from stringers – local reporters who speak the language and are paid a retainer by news organizations – but even they often will, understandably, not want to travel to areas of fighting and will do their reporting over the phone.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Jan 2011)

Terry Glavin in the CDFAI's _3Ds Blog_:

More on Jack Layton’s Speech on Afghanistan
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=79



> That Jack Layton’s trippy prescriptions for the ills that ail Afghanistan are less a persistence of noble left-wing internationalist traditions and more along the lines of black-leotard interpretive dance from a post-modern alternative universe will not be a surprise to anyone who has followed the NDP leader’s pronouncements on the matter. His most recent iteration of flower-child sanctimony and rubbish in the guise of foreign policy advice is a thing to behold.
> 
> An example: “You may have heard that seven million kids have now been vaccinated against polio. Well, this is happening because UNICEF and the World Health Organization are negotiating access to Taliban controlled areas. What these development workers on the ground are telling us is that the absence of troops helps account for their success. When they’re not tied to troops, they’re just not a target.”
> 
> ...



Read on.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## nuclearzombies (18 Jan 2011)

"You may have heard that seven million kids have now been vaccinated against polio. Well, this is happening because UNICEF and the World Health Organization are negotiating access to Taliban controlled areas. What these development workers on the ground are telling us is that the absence of troops helps account for their success. When they’re not tied to troops, they’re just not a target"


 Layton (?) is going to look pretty stupid when aid workers start disappearing & getting killed on youtube. How does one negotiate with a group of fundamentalists whose stated goals are imposing their peculiar brand of puritania on the globe? I'm sorry, I do not understand how that is logical.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Jan 2011)

This from Canadian Press, shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the _Copyright  Act_:


> A battle group of Canadian soldiers, originally intended to backstop the withdrawal from Kandahar, is expected to form the nucleus of the country's new training mission in Afghanistan.
> 
> The general commanding the transition says a battalion-sized force of soldiers from 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry had been set aside in case of emergency during the pullout, but military planners have determined it's no longer required.
> 
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Jan 2011)

Just in case you had any doubts, from Lauryn Oates:

Taliban still evil and opposed to educating girls
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/Taliban+still+evil+opposed+educating+girls/4160864/story.html



> On Jan. 14, the U.K.'s Times Educational Supplement ran a story titled "Taliban backs girls' education," elatedly announcing the Taliban had a change of heart with regards to their long-standing ban on girls' education.
> 
> However, in the story itself, it turns out the announcement came not from the Taliban leadership, but rather from their sworn enemies: the Afghan government. The only person quoted in the story was Afghan Education Minister Farooq Wardak, who reported, "What I am hearing at the very upper policy level of the Taliban is that they are no more opposing education and also girls' education."
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Jan 2011)

More from Terry Glavin:

Fawzia Koofi: "The face of what Afghanistan could be." 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2011/01/fawzia-koofi-face-of-what-afghanistan.html



> The Globe and Mail today has a refreshingly different kind of Afghanistan story - an interview with Fawzia Koofi.
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/fawzi-koofi-the-face-of-what-afghanistan-could-be/article1879540/page2/
> For some reason she shows up in the Globe story as "Fawzi" but nevermind. The odd thing is that this morning I was going over my notes from an interview with Fawzia at her place in Kabul - she was happy and proud to show me the rabbbits her daughters are raising for food and for sale at the local market - and I came upon the Globe story...
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Jan 2011)

As for the military side (plus female education):

Afghanistan. A Soldier's [_sic_] Perspective
http://propagandistmag.com/2011/01/24/afghanistan-soldiers-perspective



> The Propagandist Editor Jonathon Narvey had a quick Q & A with Canadian Lieutenant Commander Robert Watt,
> [more:
> http://blogs.ubc.ca/irsa/2011/01/24/lt-commander-rob-watt-speaking-this-thursday/ ]
> head of training for ISAF forces in Afghanistan. We discussed progress of the training mission, overall mission objectives and the morale of the troops.
> ...



Lots more.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Jan 2011)

A creative CP headline:

Top general in Afghanistan lauds work of Canadians, others in Kandahar
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/top-general-in-afghanistan-lauds-work-of-canadians-others-in-kandahar-114569164.html



> KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Canadian troops are among those getting a special pat on the back from the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan for helping to bring "hard-won progress" to the country's unruly south.
> 
> In a letter to his soldiers released Tuesday,
> http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/29586-comisaf-assessment.html
> ...



Of course the great majority of "coalition" forces in those areas are now American.

Story via:
http://twitter.com/nspector4

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jan 2011)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> A creative CP headline:
> Top general in Afghanistan lauds work of Canadians, others in Kandahar ....


An example (maybe a bit stretched) of seeking the "Canadian" angle.  Here's a link to the original letter in question (~870KB PDF) - be the judge re: how _much_ of a stretch the story is.


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Jan 2011)

Nice word usage:

Mission dubbed 'Kabul-ish'
Canadian trainers to avoid violent southern areas
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1224525.html



> OTTAWA — Within the Defence Department, the new mission is being called "Kabul-centric" or "Kabul-ish."
> 
> In the bureaucrat-speak of Ottawa, that means Canadian military trainers could give classroom instruction in regional centres beyond the embattled Afghan capital, though Defence Minister Peter MacKay ruled out Kandahar.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Jan 2011)

Interesting post by C.J. Chivers at the _NY Times_ "At War" blog:

What They Are Reading: Different Accounts of the Afghan War
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/what-theyre-reading-different-accounts-of-the-afghan-war/?ref=world



> Today’s look at reading materials in circulation among those who work in Afghanistan covers two different accounts of the Afghan war.  One, “Winning in Afghanistan” [pdf],
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/atwar/winninginafghanistan1.pdf
> is a semi-samizdat essay by a captain in the Maryland National Guard who served two recent tours in Afghanistan. The other, “How We Lost the War We Won,”
> http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/how_we_lost_war_we_won_8200
> ...



Read on.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Feb 2011)

Blunt talk across the pond about choppers (of course we're getting out of that business in Afstan):

Germay "failed to deliver" support in Afghanistan, Liam Fox
Liam Fox has launched a stinging public rebuke on Germany and Italy saying they have “failed to deliver” enough support for the Afghanistan campaign.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8301345/Germay-failed-to-deliver-support-in-Afghanistan-Liam-Fox.html



> The Defence Secretary accused the European countries of not coming up with the money, troops or equipment to help bolster the undermanned helicopter fleet.
> 
> The comments came after Dr Fox revealed that a British and French initiative to raise EUR 60 million for 10 helicopters for troops fighting in Afghanistan had only generated three aircraft with EUR 8 million from Britain and EUR 5 million from France.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Feb 2011)

Trying to figure out end-games:

Karzai Seeks End to NATO Reconstruction Teams
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/world/asia/07munich.html



> MUNICH — President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan called Sunday for the speedy dismantling of NATO-run provincial reconstruction teams, the first time he had made such a demand.
> 
> To an audience of foreign ministers and defense experts attending the annual Munich Security Conference, Mr. Karzai also repeated his call for allied governments to stop using private security companies, contending that they, along with the civilian-military reconstruction teams, are an impediment to the central government’s expanding its authority throughout the country...
> 
> ...


    

N.Y.U. Report Casts Doubt on Taliban’s Ties With Al Qaeda
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/world/asia/07afghan.html



> KABUL, Afghanistan — The Afghan Taliban have been wrongly perceived as close ideological allies of Al Qaeda, and they could be persuaded to renounce the global terrorist group, according to a report to be published Monday by New York University.
> 
> The report goes on to say that there was substantial friction between the groups’ leaders before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that hostility has only intensified.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Feb 2011)

BruceR. at _Flit_  post on the nature of the war:

Today's essential Afghan reading: Max Hastings
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2011_02_08.html#006821



> A throwaway but thought-provoking conclusion to the NYRB review (not fully online: subscription link here)
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/feb/10/most-influential-weapon-our-time/
> by Sir Max Hastings...of Afghan war correspondent and ex-soldier C.J. Chivers' _The Gun_, a history of the AK-47...
> 
> _...*In my view, our current purposes in Afghanistan are honorable not only from our own perspective, but with respect to the interests of the Afghan people. I nonetheless believe that we shall fail there*, in some degree because the AK-47, which every fighting tribesman loves, is a true manifestation of his society, however uneducated and primitive, while the Hellfire missile, the Chinook helicopter, and the Drone are not..._



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Feb 2011)

Joshua Foust agrees with President Karzai:

Actually, Karzai is right about PRTs
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/02/08/actually_karzai_is_right_about_prts



> Afghan President Hamid Karzai, everyone's favorite punching bag in Afghanistan, has decided provincial reconstruction teams -- PRTs -- are, in fact, bad for his country. "The Afghans want to have a government of their own. The Afghans don't want a government from abroad," Karzai told reporters in Kabul. "The transition means giving the whole thing to Afghan ownership and leadership. Naturally then the PRTs will have no place."
> 
> This didn't used to be controversial. When the first PRT was created in early 2003, it was actually called a provincial transition team because the idea was to transition control of an area from U.S. to Afghan control as capacity was built. Of course, that first PRT, in Gardez, Paktia, only had one civilian on it who was supposed to monitor all the reconstruction and governance activity in three provinces. Soon, the PRT program got a new name -- reconstruction this time, not transition -- and by 2007 there were 25 PRTs across the country.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman (9 Feb 2011)

> Karzai: "The Afghans want to have a government of their own. The Afghans don't want a government from abroad."


That is, of course, the view from the Presidential Palace in Kabul -- and on one level, he's correct, the Afghans must eventually run their own lives.

But a recurring theme from Kandahar and Helmand was "we don't like the Taliban; we don't like the central government; we don't like you -- but currently, you are the least of the evils." The overwhelming majority of Afghans I met have no overarching desire for 'a government of their own.' They want to be left alone to farm and raise their families. To that end, they appreciate the PRTs; it meets their needs.

While Karzai controlling the PRTs _would_ strengthen his control, and hence government, I suspect the added bureaucracy and corruption/nepotism would not benefit the average Afghan, thus weakening the campaign. 

Like the protests in Egypt, lofty ideals make for great placards and headlines, but the average person's aspirations tend to be less grandiose and lie closer to home.


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Feb 2011)

Speaks for itself:

U.K. fretted over Canadian pullout
WikiLeaks: British PM complained about departure from Afghanistan
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1226854.html



> OTTAWA — A leaked diplomatic cable says former British prime minister Gordon Brown complained to the Americans about the withdrawal of Canadian and Dutch troops from Afghanistan.
> 
> The document indicates Brown feared the departures would undermine public support for the war among NATO countries, particularly the United Kingdom.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Feb 2011)

We do seem to be taking time working out our details--presumably because the CF were blind-sided by the govt's new commitment:

NATO: 740 trainers still needed in Afghanistan
At stake is the ability of the nation's police and army to take the lead in protecting and defending the nation by 2014 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41560860/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/



> KABUL, Afghanistan — More nations are pledging support, yet NATO still faces a shortage of 740 trainers needed to get Afghan soldiers and policemen ready to take the lead in securing their nation, the coalition's top training official says.
> 
> Needed most are 290 police trainers, including those to work in new training centers opening in Afghanistan this year, U.S. Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, the commander of NATO's training mission, told The Associated Press in an interview Saturday [Feb. 12]...
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Feb 2011)

_Quelle surprise_, some well worth reading polemic from Terry Glavin:

In Tahrir Square: Nir Rosen, Lara Logan, Mao, McChrystal, The Weak and The Strong 
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2011/02/in-tahrir-square-nir-rosen-lara-logan.html



> ...
> You get the picture. Try to imagine the 30 million most generous, hardcore and well-heeled contributors among Obama's fan base suddenly being obliged to abandon their familiar argots and turn their worlds upside down from an American counterinsurgency (FMLN, got it; Sandinistas, check; Tupamaros, yes, I dimly recall) to an American-backed insurgency. Next thing you know poltergeists are flinging dog-eared Chomsky volumes all over everybody's living rooms and Cousin Henry's writhing on the floor in the paroxyms of acid flashbacks. So McChrystal had to go. And that's not even half of the way the thing I'm calling "Rolling Stone" comes into it...



Wish I could write thus.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Feb 2011)

One way to undermine President Karzai (and the ISI?):

U.S.-Taliban Talks
by Steve Coll February 28, 2011
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/02/28/110228taco_talk_coll?currentPage=all



> ...
> Last year...as the U.S.-led Afghan ground war passed its ninth anniversary, and Mullah Omar remained in hiding, presumably in Pakistan, a small number of officials in the Obama Administration—among them the late Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan—argued that it was time to try talking to the Taliban again.
> 
> Holbrooke’s final diplomatic achievement, it turns out, was to see this advice accepted. The Obama Administration has entered into direct, secret talks with senior Afghan Taliban leaders, several people briefed about the talks told me last week. The discussions are continuing; they are of an exploratory nature and do not yet amount to a peace negotiation. That may take some time: the first secret talks between the United States and representatives of North Vietnam took place in 1968; the Paris Peace Accords, intended to end direct U.S. military involvement in the war, were not agreed on until 1973.
> ...



Mr Coll's excellent book:
http://www.amazon.com/Ghost-Wars-Afghanistan-Invasion-September/dp/1594200076

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Feb 2011)

The green shoots view:

The ‘Long War’ May Be Getting Shorter
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/21nagl.html



> IT is hard to tell when momentum shifts in a counterinsurgency campaign, but there is increasing evidence that Afghanistan is moving in a more positive direction than many analysts think. It now seems more likely than not that the country can achieve the modest level of stability and self-reliance necessary to allow the United States to responsibly draw down its forces from 100,000 to 25,000 troops over the next four years.
> 
> The shift is most obvious on the ground. The additional 30,000 troops promised by President Obama in his speech at West Point 14 months ago are finally in place and changing the trajectory of the fight.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Feb 2011)

How the _Globe and Mail_ wants Canada to lead in Afstan, front page editorial:

Make women’s rights Canada’s postwar priority  ("postwar"? do they think the war is over, or know when it will end?)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/make-womens-rights-canadas-postwar-priority/article1914819/



> Afghanistan is still one of the worst places in the world to be a woman. Now that Canada’s costly and controversial overseas mission there is winding down, this country has a unique opportunity to develop a new role in Afghanistan as a champion of women’s rights.
> 
> Canada should accept our responsibility for the women of Afghanistan, and make the advancement of their condition a primary foreign-policy objective.
> 
> ...



If the Taliban return to power in significant parts of the country how does the _Globe_ expect Canada to do all these warm and fuzzy things in those (and indeed other) areas?  Warm editorial thinking but fuzzy to the max.


Here's something more immediate--from Lauryn Oates at _The Propagandist_, further links in original:

Working Against Women - The Afghan Government's Attack on Women's Shelters
http://propagandistmag.com/2011/02/15/working-against-women-afghan-governments-attack-womens-shelters



> The first women's shelters in Afghanistan only opened in the last decade, but have proven to be critical refuges to women fleeing violence. Afghanistan has one of the highest rates of violence against women in the world. The start of a network of shelters was the first crack of light into an otherwise dark void. The availability of shelters (14 in total now) is the very early beginnings of tackling a problem so pervasive as to often seem insurmountable.
> 
> In 2008, I worked on the first ever quantitative research into the levels of domestic abuse in Afghanistan. Our findings were nothing short of horrifying: in many places, a majority of women were facing regular abuse at home, whether sexual violence, physical violence, or psychological violence. Most marriages were "forced marriages" (distinct from arranged marriages), and abuse was often perpetrated by more than one family member, including female family members (30% of instances of abuse), such as a mother-in-law or sister-in-law. You can access the report, published by Global Rights, "Living With Violence: A National Report on Domestic Violence in Afghanistan" here.
> 
> ...



More on Ms Oates:
http://readysetglobal.com/lauryn.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Feb 2011)

Still troop density problems, with a Canadian angle:

US shift leaves Diggers exposed 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/us-shift-leaves-diggers-exposed/story-fn59niix-1226008394051



> AUSTRALIAN forces are losing a third of their American allies in Oruzgan province as NATO moves troops into the more strategically important Kandahar region.
> 
> Australian military officials acknowledge that the decrease in US troops in the province will be significant but reject suggestions it will affect operations.
> 
> ...



Via _Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs_: 
http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/257-eng.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Feb 2011)

Good old Matthew Fisher was onto this Feb. 3:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Alaskan+army+brigade+replace+Canadian+Forces+Afghanistan/4218512/story.html



> A U.S. army brigade from Alaska is to replace Canadian troops when their combat mission in southern Afghanistan ends this July.
> 
> About 4,000 troops of the 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division from Fort Wainwright, near Fairbanks, Alaska, are to "backfill" for Canada's 2,800-member battle group, according to the Stars and Stripes, which cited a U.S. army colonel as its source...
> 
> ...



Fellow knows his stuff and ORBAT unlike...

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Feb 2011)

Stunted shoots, from the _Afghan & Military Blog_:

Whack-a-Mole or Taliban
http://www.bouhammer.com/2011/02/whack-a-mole-or-taliban/



> If you watched any of the news this weekend, through today then you know that it has been a bad few days in Afghanistan. There have been multiple bombings, attacks, and a lot of death over the last few days. What is really scary is that is is areas which have been historically “safe” like Konduz that have had a recent uptick in reported attacks.
> 
> The “Mez” and Konduz used to take a back seat to the south and east when it came to violence against coalition forces. That is why many countries sent their forces to Afghanistan with the caveat that they only serve in the north. Countries like Spain, Germany and many others only liked to have their forces serve up north.
> 
> ...



On the other hand the Afghan political (and other) effect of the "insurgents" likely depends on how many Pathans live the area.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Feb 2011)

Rather more measured than our government's approach:

Poland to start troops pullout from Afghanistan this year 
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90853/7295304.html



> Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski wants to start the withdrawal of Polish troops from Afghanistan this year, head of the National Security Office (BBN) Stanislaw Koziej said on Monday.
> 
> "This complies with president's earlier declarations and content of his address during a meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Lisbon last November. Such position stems from a comparison of Polish national interests with conclusions of analysis and assessment of condition and outlook for the operation in Afghanistan. It is also fully situated within the Alliance's long-range strategy towards Afghanistan passed during NATO last summit," Koziej stressed, quoted by the PAP news agency.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Feb 2011)

From a _WSJ_ book review:

In Afghanistan With Our Warrior Elite, By ANDREW EXUM 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703584804576144234171319632.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLESecondBucket



> Bing West's "The Wrong War: Grit, Strategy, and the Way Out of Afghanistan"
> http://www.amazon.ca/Wrong-War-Grit-Strategy-Afghanistan/dp/1400068738/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298386637&sr=8-1
> is one of the best books yet written on the war in Afghanistan. I disagree with the way Mr. West characterizes the war at times, but "The Wrong War" is filled with both vivid descriptions of the Afghan fighting and sound advice concerning how counterinsurgencies should be waged.
> 
> ...


   

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Feb 2011)

Major piece in _Foreign Policy_ by Gen. (ret'd) Stanley McChrystal:

It Takes a Network
The new frontline of modern warfare.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/22/it_takes_a_network?page=0,0



> From the outset of my command in Afghanistan, two or three times each week, accompanied by a few aides and often my Afghan counterparts, I would leave the International Security Assistance Force headquarters in Kabul and travel across Afghanistan -- from critical cities like Kandahar to the most remote outposts in violent border regions. Ideally, we left early, traveling light and small, normally using a combination of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, to meet with Afghans and their leaders and to connect with our troops on the ground: Brits and Marines rolling back the enemy in Helmand, Afghan National Army troops training in Mazar-e-Sharif, French Foreign Legionnaires patrolling in Kapisa.
> 
> But I was not alone: There were other combatants circling the battlefield. Mirroring our movements, competing with us, were insurgent leaders. Connected to, and often directly dispatched by, the Taliban's leadership in Pakistan, they moved through the same areas of Afghanistan. They made shows of public support for Taliban shadow governors, motivated tattered ranks, recruited new troops, distributed funds, reviewed tactics, and updated strategy. And when the sky above became too thick with our drones, their leaders used cell phones and the Internet to issue orders and rally their fighters. They aimed to keep dispersed insurgent cells motivated, strategically wired, and continually informed, all without a rigid -- or targetable -- chain of command.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Feb 2011)

An ineffable war?  From Joshua Foust:

The Battle for Marjah, Reviewed
http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/02/22/the_battle_for_marjah_reviewed



> ...The unnarrated film unfolds in a chronology of the battle, showing how the Marines first assaulted the area, how difficult and fragile their progress was, and how they coped with the stresses of combat. It is not an easy story to tell, even if it is a common one: the frustrations of operating under the spotlight of live media coverage; of restrictive rules for combat; of wondering if your next step will set off an IED that will maim you or kill you; of dealing with the Afghans after killing one of their family members who was fighting for the Taliban. It is perhaps its own story to realize that these themes are universal in the war, and crop up routinely. But that still doesn't make a story composed of them any easier to tell or to hear.
> 
> Like the other documentaries about the war in Afghanistan, The Battle for Marjah is a study in contrasts. The officers leading their men speak eloquently and forcefully about their commitment to avoiding civilian casualties, while in the next shot a group of enlisted men cackle at the explosions they're setting off along town streets as their Afghan counterparts look on, forlorn. There is constant talk of winning the population, while the locals complain they are intimidated and unable to resist the Taliban...
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Feb 2011)

Further to this post,
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-1020500/topicseen.html#msg1020500

more on Bing West's new book:

The Next Impasse, By DEXTER FILKINS
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/books/review/Filkins-t.html



> *THE WRONG WAR*
> _Grit, Strategy, and the Way Out of Afghanistan_
> http://www.amazon.ca/Wrong-War-Grit-Strategy-Afghanistan/dp/1400068738/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298386637&sr=8-1
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Feb 2011)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Further to this post,
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-1020500/topicseen.html#msg1020500
> 
> more on Bing West's new book:
> ...





Bit of a tangent, I'm afraid, but *what is St. Crispin's Order of the Infantry?* Bing West is, apparently, a member of this organization and I'm (only mildly) curious about it. Now, if it was e.g. St. Crispin's Order of the Archers, or even the Meteorologists, I might be less curious, but ...


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Feb 2011)

The following story from the National Post website is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act. Note: this sets off my "what is the real story" alarm.

Taliban chief who fought Canadians surrenders

Keith Gerein, Postmedia News · Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011

A young Taliban field commander who waged numerous battles against Canadian troops has surrendered to Afghan authorities, along with 30 of his men. 

Haji Toorjan, 28, hinted at growing fractures in the Taliban's hierarchy, saying other mid-level insurgents are looking to lay down their arms and rejoin Afghan society. 

"I know many Taliban in the south, they want to renounce violence but they have no outreach program," he said Tuesday after a ceremony in Kandahar City in which he turned over his weapons. 

"Among the Taliban, there are commanders now who are tired and want to join the peace process. The government should reach them out and meet their demands, which are not high: protection, shelter and jobs." 

Mr. Toorjan said he has been serving on the front lines of the insurgency for five years, primarily as a commander in the Panjwaii district where many Canadian troops have been killed. More recently, he has been operating in the Arghandab district, a U.S. area of responsibility northwest of Kandahar City. 

"We fought seriously against NATO and the Afghan government," he said through an interpreter. 

"Mostly I have been engaged with Canadian Forces in Panjwaii district. We fought a lot against Canadian Forces." 

Taliban leaders have been instructing field commanders to attack softer targets, such as government workers, tribal elders, and reconstruction projects such as roads and irrigation culverts, he added. 

He and his men became disenchanted with the long struggle, ultimately deciding to trade in their AK-47s for the prospect of a regular job and the chance to raise a family. He said the Taliban paid its fighters nothing, but provided food, weapons and shelter across the border in Pakistan. 

The young commander said the tipping point came when he learned Pakistan's intelligence service has been supporting much of the violence in Afghanistan as a way of expanding its influence. 

A short time later, he contacted a leader within Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security, who arranged to pick him up in the border town of Spin Boldak and bring him to Kandahar. 

"Pakistan's [intelligence service] wants to make us bring violence to Afghanistan. They are sending Afghans to fight against their own soil and bring destruction to the country, so I decided not [to] fight against Afghans anymore."


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Feb 2011)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Canadian soldiers should be allowed to finish their fight*
MERCEDES STEPHENSON, QMI Agency, 27 Feb 11
Article link


> This summer, as Kandahar bakes in the relentless heat, Canada will formally end its combat role in Afghanistan. After nearly a decade of fighting, Canadians will transition to a training role — behind the wire — teaching the Afghan National Security Forces.
> 
> Canada must maintain a presence in Afghanistan, but it is difficult for Canadians to walk away from combat operations in Kandahar before the job is done, given the heroic efforts and sacrifices of our soldiers.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Mar 2011)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Ottawa under the gun to specify Afghan training mission as slots fill up*
Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press, 6 Mar 11
Article link[/color]]Article link

The federal cabinet is being asked to decide quickly on the specifics of the Canadian military training mission in Afghanistan as other countries jockey for prime classroom instruction posts, say NATO and Canadian defence sources.

National Defence will present its recommendations to the Conservative government in the very near future and will ask to deploy "a small number" of troops at regional training centres in addition to stationing soldiers at classrooms in the Afghan capital.

"We'll need to start laying down our markers by April in order to get the slots we want," said one defence source.

The locations under consideration include the western city of Herat, Mazar-e-Sharif in the north and Jalalabad, near the border with Pakistan.

Not long after Canada said it would take up a training mission with 950 soldiers and support staff, the Dutch indicated they were willing to do police training.

The fear has become that if the Harper government waits too long to make a decision, Canada could be left filling the leftover slots in much the same way dithering by the Liberal government under Paul Martin left Ottawa with no choice but to take up the dangerous mission in Kandahar.

But a certain obfuscation crept into the message in January. Officials and ministers started telegraphing that deployment would be "Kabul-centric" — meaning it'll be based in the capital but not exclusively in Kabul.

In fact, each of the regional training centres under consideration is ranked safer than Kabul, according to the military's threat assessment. The Afghan capital has been rocked by a string of attacks this winter, including a suicide bombing last month that killed two people at the entrance to a hotel.

The Conservative government has made clear both privately and publicly it does not want to see a proposal that would station troops at instruction centres in Kandahar, or elsewhere in the south.

The caveat — from a government that has long criticized other NATO countries for restrictions on their forces — is in place even though the U.S. commander of NATO training forces has said publicly that instructors are needed "behind the wire" in Kandahar.

Vice-Admiral Bruce Donaldson, the country's second-highest military commander, wouldn't discuss details of the plan.

"Government will make a decision on what best fits the view of the Canadian Forces' next mission and we'll implement it in conjunction with our allies," Donaldson, the vice-chief of defence staff, said in a recent interview with The Canadian Press.

Matching Canada's restrictions to NATO's stated list of training needs has been a "hair-pulling exercise," according to one source in Brussels. The training centre has asked for everything from infantry instructors and signallers to the specialized trades of aircraft mechanics.

Donaldson wouldn't comment.

"We continue to look at options with our partners," he said.

Statistics show that regardless of where you went in Afghanistan last year, there were more attacks on foreigners. An Afghan agency that tracks security for aid groups reported a 64 per cent increase in the number of bombings, shootings and kidnappings aimed at non-governmental development and humanitarian workers.

"Although provincial level data shows that each province performed differently, taking the national data as a whole we consider this indisputable evidence that conditions are deteriorating," the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office reported in January.

The agency noted that of the 10 provinces in the north, six of them saw sharp increases in insurgent attacks, ranging from 107 to 252 per cent.

"It's getting increasingly violent," said Thomas X. Hammes, a retired U.S. marine colonel and expert in counter-insurgency warfare. "Whereas a couple of years ago there was very little contact in the north, now there's fairly regular contact in the German area."

Kandahar, with 1,162 reported attacks in 2010, was the second most violent province in Afghanistan, next to Kunar in the east, according to the NGO watchdog. The provinces outside Kabul, where Canadian troops could end up, saw between one quarter and half that total.

Hammes said the nature of the threat is different outside southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban focus their energy and explosives on Afghan security forces, NATO troops and government officials.

In Kabul, terror incidents are more likely to be led by the Al-Qaeda-linked Haqqani Network.

"Kabul has been mostly high-profile attacks on areas where foreigners are likely to be, but for the most part they've missed U.S. military or ISAF military because everybody is behind the barrier," Hammes said.

The most notable, and perhaps chilling, exception for Canadians was the death last May of Col. Geoff Parker, who was killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul along with U.S. officers. He was the highest ranking Canadian to be killed in Afghanistan.


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Mar 2011)

Spin, spin, spin:

CP:
550 civilians killed last year in Kandahar, Afghanistan's deadliest province
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/civilian-deaths-injuries-grew-11-per-cent-kandahar-20110309-032937-521.html



> KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - More Afghan civilians were killed in Kandahar than any other province last year, while counterinsurgency operations within Canada's area of command resulted in "large-scale" property destruction, the United Nations said Wednesday.
> 
> The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan called on both NATO and insurgent forces to strengthen their efforts to protect Afghans as it released a report examining the severe toll the war has exacted on civilian lives and livelihoods.
> 
> ...



_Guardian_:
Most Afghan civilian deaths 'caused by Taliban attacks, not US forces'
Despite UN report, growing number of insurgent atrocities unlikely to damp popular fury over botched US strikes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/09/afghanistan-insurgents-civilian-victims



> Popular fury over the killing of civilians in botched US-led attacks in Afghanistan is unlikely to be assuaged by new figures showing the Taliban are responsible for a vast and growing proportion of innocent deaths.
> 
> The annual United Nations report on civilian casualties shows that more than two-thirds of the 2,777 civilians killed last year were the victims of insurgents – a 28% increase on 2009. By contrast Nato and Afghan government forces were responsible for killing 440, a 25% decrease.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Mar 2011)

What's it all been about?

Canada’s Afghan legacy unclear (usual copyright disclaimer)
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/03/12/17593981.html



> KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - The Canadian mission in Afghanistan is ending, and in about four months, the majority of Canada's soldiers will come home.
> 
> Now that the Canadian Forces have spent almost 10 years marching on Afghan soil and evading homemade bombs, it's time to assess the situation.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Mar 2011)

On this, _"... the goal of Canada's mission in Afghanistan, particularly in Kandahar, has never been clear"_, however, Drapeau is quite correct. If there is no _strategic_ aim - and I would argue there has never been one, not since 2001 - then how in hell can the CF a have clear mission, much less goals and objectives and all that? Maybe he's just like a stopped clock - right twice a day - but he is right on that point.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Mar 2011)

E.R. Campbell: I would say that for several years Canada's and ISAF's strategic goal has been to hold off, and hurt as much as possible, the Talibs whilst the ANSF are built up to take over the job.  That latter part however has been a very long time in the works; the first part has only really moved forward since the various US surges, beginning with Bush's first very modest ground one in Sept. 2008:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYzezvQJllNb71qrzwSoXLF_DdeA

A combat aviation brigade was then ordered deployed under Bush in December, and the planning was done for what became the early 2009 first Obama surge:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/12/19/4438123-us-to-double-troops-in-afghanistan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/03/AR2009020302858.html?hpid=topnews

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Mar 2011)

On Canada's goals:
(from here)



> •maintain a more secure environment and establish law and order by building the capacity of the Afghan National Army and Police, and support complementary efforts in the areas of justice and corrections;
> •provide jobs, education, and essential services, like water;
> •provide humanitarian assistance to people in need, including refugees; and
> •enhance the management and security of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
> ...



Granted, this was issued in 2008.

There is more info at that site.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Mar 2011)

Unfortunately but honestly the above is, in terms of strategy--specifically military, gov't propaganda.  Except maybe for the first bullet.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Mar 2011)

Where are we?

Petraeus to face Congress as Afghanistan war doubts grow
Gen. David Petraeus will report progress, but top intelligence analysts say the U.S. troop surge has failed to fundamentally undermine the Taliban.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-petraeus-20110315,0,33454.story



> ...When Gen. David H. Petraeus appears before Congress on Tuesday to tout progress in Afghanistan, he will face a series of pessimistic assessments about the state of the war, including the intelligence community's conclusion that tactical gains achieved by a U.S. troop surge have failed to fundamentally weaken the Taliban.
> 
> A year after the launch of a revamped counterinsurgency strategy, several major obstacles persist: The government of President Hamid Karzai is viewed as corrupt and ineffective, the Taliban exhibits a fierce will to fight, and the enemy enjoys safe havens in the tribal areas of Pakistan that drone strikes can disrupt but not eliminate, according to public U.S. intelligence assessments.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Mar 2011)

Our new training mission seems to have been overlooked:

Keeping The Peace In Afghanistan
_AW&ST_, March 16
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/dti/2011/03/01/DT_03_01_2011_p39-291333.xml



> This fall marks the 10th anniversary of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. Despite more than $50 billion in reconstruction funds that have poured into the country—$29 billion of which have gone to Afghan security forces, with an additional $11 billion slated to be spent this year—even the most optimistic assessments are that little progress has been made in rule of law, governance and security.
> 
> Now that Washington and Kabul have tagged 2014 as the year that the Afghan National Security Forces will begin taking the lead for the country’s security, the push is on to train and field as many members of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) as possible. While NATO trainers have made huge strides in professionalizing the force and growing their ranks while speeding up training schedules, constant combat and staggering attrition call into question how much can really be expected of these forces in a few short years. Chief among the worries is the sorry state of the ANP, whose training and welfare was, until 2009, almost an afterthought.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Mar 2011)

Conclusion of a lengthy piece at _Foreign Policy's_ "AfPak Channel":

My Embed with a Warlord
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/11/my_embed_with_a_warlord



> ...
> A few days later, we took a U.S. Black Hawk helicopter with Daoud to a remote part of a neighboring province. At a dusty police and army post, there was a little ceremony for insurgents who were "reintegrating." They lined up to be presented with gifts of chapans, traditional Afghan coats made of thick, warm material with a bright green and red stripe. The local police chief threw the coats over the insurgents' shoulders and shook hands. They looked embarrassed to be there. The atmosphere was muted. "We are just simple farmers," said one. "We had to join the Taliban. They were in our village. We had no choice."
> 
> But as we left, one of the Taliban issued a quiet threat to our interpreter: "If we see you again, we'll cut your throat," he said, under his breath. (They were also well armed for farmers: Kalashnikovs, heavy machine guns, and rocket-propelled grenades. The police had taken the precaution of having the firing pins removed from the weapons for the ceremony.) Daoud told me that "within 100 days" the defecting Taliban could expect to be offered jobs in the local police. A few weeks ago, they had been manning Taliban checkpoints on the main road through the district. Soon they would be doing the same thing for the police. This was what reintegration meant in practice.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (17 Mar 2011)

A article which  I thought was very interesting:

New York Times

Pressure Mounts on All Parties in Afghan War to Begin Talks
By ALISSA J. RUBIN
March 16, 2011
Pressure Mounts on All Parties in Afghan War to Begin Talks
By ALISSA J. RUBIN
KABUL, Afghanistan — As American troops press the Taliban in their desert and mountain redoubts, Western diplomats, Taliban leaders and the Afghan government have begun to take a hard look at what it would take to start a negotiation to end the fighting.

Efforts to start peace talks have yielded little in the past. Nonetheless, interest in a political track is growing as pressure mounts to find a palatable way to reduce the military commitment here and as public support for the war ebbs in the United States and Europe.

“The environment is shifting,” said a Western diplomat here, who echoed a number of others interviewed. “If the Taliban make a decision they are interested, things could move quite quickly.”

Publicly, at least, the Taliban have always stated that they will not negotiate before foreign troops leave the country. Now, however, some Taliban leaders have signaled that they will be open to talks sooner if their security can be guaranteed, and rank-and-file fighters appear increasingly eager to see an end to the war.

For their part, United States officials have also been adamant that they will not talk to top Taliban or other insurgent leaders they consider to be “irreconcilable.” But recently they have quietly begun reducing the obstacles to talks.

In February, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a speech at the Asia Society in New York, appeared to recast longstanding preconditions for talks: that the insurgents lay down their arms, accept the Afghan Constitution and separate from Al Qaeda. Instead, she described them as “necessary outcomes.”

Officially, the State Department played down the change in language, but a senior Western diplomat in Washington, who was familiar with the strategy behind Mrs. Clinton’s speech, said: “It was not intentional to explicitly make preconditions into outcomes. But the text now leaves room for interpretation, which opens doors.”

Intentional or not, the speech was read in Kabul as giving a green light to other Western countries to start laying the groundwork for talks.

“The seismic shift here was Hillary Clinton’s speech,” said a diplomat here. “This is liberating for other countries who want to try to facilitate a negotiation.”

It is the American nod that many have been waiting for. Several countries, among them Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have tried to serve as peace brokers, but without the imprimatur of the United States. That the Americans are signaling that they are open to talks “is a paradigm shift,” said Rangin Dadfar Spanta, President Hamid Karzai’s national security adviser.

The Afghan government insists that the preconditions for talks remain the same but supports diplomatic efforts that would lead to negotiations, and it appears willing to provide amnesty and security for the Taliban leaders so that they can participate in talks unhindered.

The High Peace Council, which was appointed by Mr. Karzai, recently wrote letters to the Quetta Shura and the Peshawar Shura, two of the Taliban’s leadership organizations, inviting them to talk. A member of the council, Hajji Deen Mohammed, said the Taliban shuras replied with questions about whether the council had true autonomy and could ensure the safety of insurgent leaders.

“We are working on this process to find a location or safe haven for the Taliban to go there with protections and guarantees to talk to the Americans and the world,” said Arsala Rahmani, the former Taliban minister of higher education and now a member of the High Peace Council.

American officials in Washington said that allowing the Taliban to open an office in Turkey was a possible measure under active consideration, but that no decisions had been made.

“We have gotten approval for an office from Turkey, and if we have an office, then the world can come and the Taliban can come and within a week, once it’s set up, they will be talking,” said Mr. Rahmani, who is one of a handful of former Taliban officials who maintain contacts with the Quetta Shura.

Mr. Rahmani, however, is viewed as a moderate. When asked, a member of the Quetta Shura insisted that there were no talks at all. Several diplomats in touch with the Taliban indirectly said members of the leadership could not be seen to be reaching out to the West because then they would lose their ability to persuade Taliban foot soldiers to keep fighting.

The Taliban would also consider it vital that some of its leaders be removed from the United Nations sanctions list, which would allow them to obtain passports and travel outside Pakistan, where they are based, so that they could be part of negotiations, said Western diplomats.

Removing them from the list would also build confidence that American and Western officials were negotiating in good faith, as would releasing one or two high-profile Taliban fighters who are in detention in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the diplomats said.

But the effort is fraught as well. Each application for a Taliban member’s removal from the list requires voluminous documentation and approval by each United Nations Security Council member. Russia, which fought a nine-year war with the Afghans, has been skeptical of efforts to remove any of them.

Another looming problem is Pakistan. The Taliban’s fortunes are intertwined with that of the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, which helped to create the Taliban in the 1990s, but now the Taliban feel trapped by Pakistan. Some senior Taliban leaders have tried to negotiate with the Afghan government without Pakistan’s approval, including the No. 2 Taliban commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, who was arrested in Pakistan last year.

Other Taliban commanders, too, have been detained, threatened or even killed by Pakistani security forces, to press them to keep fighting.

The “Taliban won’t go for peace talks either in Pakistan or Afghanistan,” said Hajji Qar Mohammed, a senior tribal leader in Quetta who is close to the Taliban.

“In Pakistan the ISI won’t let them talk freely and say what the leadership wants, and in Afghanistan the Taliban leadership doesn’t trust Karzai’s administration,” he said.

Alissa J. Rubin reported in Kabul. Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington, Carlotta Gall from Kabul and Taimoor Shah from Kandahar.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/world/asia/17taliban.html?hp=&pagewanted=print


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jun 2011)

It's no secret that I oppose staying in Afghanistan. We had it, as we used to say, _made in the shade_ in 2006/07 in Kandahar and, therefore, in all of Afghanistan _viz a viz_ the Taliban, anyway. But our erstwhile allies, including the USA, dropped the strategic ball - of anyone ever had a grip on it post about 2003 - and they, Europe and the USA, mainly, left us dangling when one or two or, at the outside, three brigades would have put paid to the Taliban, in its home base, in 2007 and now we find ourselves, still, holding on the shitty end of Merkel's and Obama's stick while they play domestic politics with our soldiers lives.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ is an article that pretty well sums up the current fiasco:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/06/25/george-jonas-snatching-stalemate-from-the-jaws-of-victory/


> George Jonas: Snatching stalemate from the jaws of victory
> 
> George Jonas  Jun 25, 2011
> 
> ...




One quibble: I'm not so sure history will give us - the US/NATO led West - credit for a _stalemate_. My guess is that 50 and 100 years from now this will be seen as another US defeat at the hands of yet another rag-tag _national liberation_ 'movement.'

A bigger quibble; annexing Afghanistan or Iraq would never bring democracy. The Arabs and West Asians and North Africans all need two things before they can ever become real democracies - something better than the pale, _*illiberal*_ imitations we see in most of the world :

1. A religious _reformation_; and

2. An intellectual, _cultural_, *enlightenment*.

Neither is likely to happen and the second probably depends upon the first.

We - the US led West - *had* a pretty clear aim is 2001/02 and some of us still had one again in 2005/06/07. But that "some of us' did  not include the USA or most of the big, rich, powerful European _leaders_. By 2003 the US had drifted into a totally _aimless_ and ultimately useless fiasco in Iraq - which will not end with any of the USA's _strategic_ objectives - such as they were - being achieved for anything but the most brief and temporary time periods. By 2005 Europe was tired of Afghanistan and wanted out.

We are still there because our government decided it was more important to appease a still important American ally than to pursue our own self interest. In effect we decided that appeasing the USA *is* our self interest.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jun 2011)

While annexing and nation building in the traditiona manner isn't in the cards, there may still be one way to generate the "enlightenment" that is needed to stabilize these societies and bring about the peaceful and stable global situation we need for our _own_ national interest.

What I will suggest is accepting lots of young people from the region to come to Canada on long term scholarships. This is hardly contestable on humanitarian or practical grounds, Afghanistan (or most other potential target nations) need doctors, plumbers, skilled tradesmen, bankers etc. We cannot plead poverty either, we should be able to devote resources on the same scale as we did on the military side of the equation (billions of dollars over almost 10 years). The key is to be able to send back a cadre of tens of thousands of people who not only have the skills, but who have also absorbed the cultural attitudes of Canadian society (or liberal western culture in general).

Think of this as a sort of insurgency in reverse. The families of the cadre will know that when their sons and daughters return they will be cared for, since the cadre members will by definition be able to earn much higher incomes on average (this will also ensure long term support for the program as more parents will want to put their children into the program). When the cadre begins to return, they will also form an attractor for people looking to get ahead, and a stark contrast to the sort of mindset and culture that currently exists.

Sadly, we had the chance to do something like that during our stay in the region, on our return to Kandahar it was reported that something like six million children had started going to school. If we had generously supported the school effort and utilized our military power to sheild and shepard the children through school, then by 2014 there wold be a cadre of six million trained and educated people able to take the reigns of Afghan society. (The primary difference here is there would be no garuntee that they would have western friendly attitudes).


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Jun 2011)

As long as no-one goes near Colorado:

*Sayyid Qutb's America*
_Al Qaeda Inspiration Denounced U.S. Greed, Sexuality_
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1253796

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Gunner98 (26 Jun 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While annexing and nation building in the traditiona manner isn't in the cards, there may still be one way to generate the "enlightenment" that is needed to stabilize these societies and bring about the peaceful and stable global situation we need for our _own_ national interest.
> 
> What I will suggest is accepting lots of young people from the region to come to Canada on long term scholarships. This is hardly contestable on humanitarian or practical grounds, Afghanistan (or most other potential target nations) need doctors, plumbers, skilled tradesmen, bankers etc. We cannot plead poverty either, we should be able to devote resources on the same scale as we did on the military side of the equation (billions of dollars over almost 10 years). The key is to be able to send back a cadre of tens of thousands of people who not only have the skills, but who have also absorbed the cultural attitudes of Canadian society (or liberal western culture in general).
> 
> ...



And who would guarantee protection and income for the families for the 9 years that the young doctor is gone away to learn from the infidels?  And upon their return the doctor would work in a third-world hospital for which his first world skills would be unsuited and he would quickly pack up his family and move to Pakistan.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jul 2011)

I have some, very limited, sympathy for Sen. Colin Kenny's position, outlined in this opinion piece, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_.

(My 'sympathy' is limited to the fact that it is always difficult to be the first to utter an unpopular position; I recall, many years ago, being roundly and vigorously criticized for an essay that suggested that the _Entente cordiale_ (1904) (between Britain and France) was the worst foreign policy blunder in nearly 1000 years of British history and that World War I was unnecessary and that if it had to happen Britain was on the wrong side – the wrong side being any side at all. I finally passed the course but only after having to face down irate professors who suggested that I dishonoured their late fathers, uncles, atc.)

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Afghanistan+without+purpose/5062068/story.html 


> Afghanistan was a ar without purpose
> 
> Colin Kenny, National Post
> 
> ...




I want to resist the temptation of a paragraph by paragraph rebuttal, but ...

_”Canada deployed troops to Kandahar because General Rick Hillier ...”_: Bullsh!t, and what's worse Kenny, a fairly astute and well connected _insider_, knows it's BS. The “blame Hillier” lie has been pretty well debunked by scholar after scholar but Liberals cannot avoid repeating it. Canada deployed to Kandahar because we were, _de facto_, frozen out of the nice, safe, easy provinces by the Europeans ~ no one wanted Kandahar and our “voice” in NATO was too soft to be heard, something for which we can thank 40 years of (mostly Liberal) neglect of our role in the world, starting with that idiot Trudeau's 1970 piece of policy vandalism, _'A Foreign Policy for Canadians,'_ – the worst foreign policy white paper _*ever*_ from Ottawa. Paul Martin's _dithering_ didn't help, nor did Alex Himelfarb's relative disinterest in and distaste for foreign and defence policy, but Gen. Hillier was just one of many, many bums in seats around a big conference table and his _intelligence_, faulty or not, was only one of many, many inputs that Paul Martin _et al_ considered.

We went to Afghanistan twice – first, on Jean Chrétien's watch, because Canadians, _en masse_, wanted us to “do something” in the immediate wake of 9/11; and second, when  Chrétien was still PM, in order to be “too busy to go to Iraq.” We went, first, to Kandahar, for one 'rotation,' by the end of which public support for the mission had nearly evaporated; then we went to Kabul and there was, if not real public support, at least 'relief' that we were not going to Iraq. Then, under Paul Martin, we went back to Kandahar.

Contrary to Kenny's assertions, successive governments did explain 'why' we were in Afghanistan; it is fair and true to say that the rationale for the mission was never expressed clearly and simply – something that would have suggested that political leaders, themselves, actually understood and supported the mission (and I believe that none of  Chrétien, Martin or Harper did/do understand or support the mission). It is also fair to say that the government's rationales shifted but there were, initially, three reasons to be there:

1. To defend ourselves – a real concern because Osama bin Laden had explicitly named Canada as one of his targets. Afghanistan was _al Qaeda's_ main base. Denying _al Qaeda_ its main base was, and still is, a good plan;

2. To “punch above our weight” - something we had, as a matter of policy, decided not to do for many, many years (ever since about 1968) – because we recognized that our inability/unwillingness to do our fair share to maintain world security was costing us in e.g. Trade negotiations; and

3. To help Afghanistan to help itself – to make it secure enough that it would not, not soon, anyway, allow itself to become a terrorist base.

None of those were bad reasons to go to war.

Kenny gives us a litany of things we “knew.” He implies that we knew those things in 2001/02 or, again, in 2005, and it is true that some scholars and commentators did warn about most of the things on his list, but the fact is that we didn't 'know' in 2001/02 or even in 2005 what we can see, now, in hindsight.

Was the war in our 'national interest?' Kenny says we have no interests, vital or not, in Afghanistan. He's right, in his own narrow view, but the was wasn't about Canada's interests in Afghanistan, it was about Canada's interests in Washington, Beijing, New Delhi and London. On that basis, and on balance, the war made sense and Colin Kenny talks nonsense.


----------



## Nemo888 (7 Jul 2011)

I  get the feeling the security situation in Afghanistan not getting any better, at least judging by the number of attacks. The violence never abates. I'm no expert but I think we are being screwed the same way the Russians were. We are not stopping our enemies funding. Saudi, Pakistani and (rumour has it)Chinese money is still flowing into the coffers. If we don't stop the money we will just be bled dry. Which was Osama's plan all along. Bleed the West till they are destroyed financially. If we don't cut off our enemies resources we are fighting by proxy more countries than we can handle. Since we don't have the will to even seriously talk about taking on the men behind the money it all seems rather pointless. Withdrawing could significantly decrease foreign funding and hurt our enemy more ironically.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Jul 2011)

Edward:

Had any government framed our last ten years as an effort to curry favour in allied nations then we could perhaps claim (at best) a draw - the most common phrase of political discourse is "Yes, but what have you done for me recently?", with "recent" generally defined as the attention span of a politician, 15 minutes at best.

But a claim of "victory" or "success" is measured against the declared objectives.  And if we (the royal "we") have declared that victory is the eradication of the Taliban, then we have failed.  If we have declared that victory is transforming a feudal, warlord state into a Jeffersonian democracy, then we have failed.  If we have declared that victory is installing a professional military and police capable of defending their own country, then we have failed.

None of these are a denigration of the sailors, airmen and air women, and particularly not of the soldiers who served (and continue to serve, and will continue to serve).  But that a nation the size of Canada has been hard-pressed to keep a single battalion on the ground is risible.  That unwilingness to commit contributed greatly to the failure to achieve strategic aims; how many times did we read in the news that Canadian Soldiers had cleared the Panjwai of Taliban, then left?

Kenny's article has its flaws, but the premise is sound: the declared objectives have not been met.  And will not be met.  Not due to failings of the soldiers on the ground.

(His misunderstanding of accountability for decisions, however, is odd - I would have thought he would know better than to blame the loudest voice in the room.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jul 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Edward:
> 
> Had any government framed our last ten years as an effort to curry favour in allied nations then we could perhaps claim (at best) a draw - the most common phrase of political discourse is "Yes, but what have you done for me recently?", with "recent" generally defined as the attention span of a politician, 15 minutes at best.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jul 2011)

I'll agree with Kenny on his point that the Afghan government is one of the most corrupt and inefficient governments in the world.

His point on girls going to school as 'too few' is moot. Before we got there there were none in school.

While some of his other points may have merit, the article seems framed to show most of the problems are somehow Harper's, even if unstated. It smells of liberal.

If we learned one thing over there, it's how far we can trust our myriad of NATO partners, individually, unless the conflict affects them personally or takes place on their soil or soil of interest. I was disappointed in how many payed lip service to the mission and refused to leave their bars in Kabul for six months.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jul 2011)

More from Senator Kenny, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._


> In the National Post last week, I argued that our military mission to Afghanistan was pretty much a failure. There were some successes - we pleased our American allies and we gave our troops combat experience.
> 
> But there were plenty of negatives on the other side of the balance sheet.
> 
> ...


Source:  _National Post_, 14 Jul 11

On that last stat on civilians killed, I know NATO can always do better (and strive to), but let's also remember that between 7 and 8 out of 10 of the civvy casualties in the first 1/2 of 2011 were caused by the bad guys according to the latest UN stats - more on that in earlier threads here and here.

_ - edited to add latest UN stats -_


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jul 2011)

The American approach (?):

http://outsidethewire.com/blog/afghanistan/argendahb-awakening.html



> *Argendahb Awakening?*
> Written by JD Johannes
> Wednesday, 20 July 2011
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Jul 2011)

The following story from the Toronto Star is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act. I am not sure if it has no theme or if it has too many themes.

Since 9/11: Winning Canada, losing Afghanistan

Published On Sat Jul 23 2011

By Mitch PotterWashington Bureau

Yours and mine weren’t the hearts and minds Canadian soldiers were aiming for when they first landed in Kandahar amid the stratospherically high hopes of early 2002.

But as the last of our combat troops trickle home nearly a decade later, few would dispute it is Canada they won. Death by death, injury by injury, the hard slog of the longest war transformed not only the Canadian Forces, but the way Canadians see them.

Afghanistan remains, at best, an open question. At worst, a lost cause. 

But the “new” Canadian army — bloodied, battle-hardened and better equipped than at any point since the Cold War — occupies the Canadian consciousness in a way old hands can’t remember since the 1950s.

It’s not just a question of resources, though the money has freely flowed. Canada’s annual military spending has surged by half since 9/11 — we now rank 14th globally in military outlay, with a 2010 infusion of $22.8 billion, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

But arguably more significant, the national embrace of the dust-encrusted rank-and-file: the Highway of Heroes, the Red Fridays, the yellow stickers on cars; the lone bagpiper at the ramp ceremonies that accompanied 157 soldiers’ coffins home.

“Our soldiers are not outsiders anymore. They are embedded in Canada’s consciousness in a way we haven’t seen since the Korean War,” said Col. (Ret.) Brian MacDonald, senior analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations.

“That connection was lost around 1966, when the military dropped its presence on Canadian campuses. The Forces lost contact with the people, to a large extent.

“But now we have a Highway of Heroes running into the heart of our cities. And when the motorcades go by, people line the bridges. It’s a striking change.”

As they come home, the Canadian Forces also find themselves kitted as well, or better, than many of their NATO peers. A self-contained, modernized army, replete with the once-missing pieces —Chinook helicopters and a fleet of four massive CC-177 Globemaster aircraft — for whatever comes next.

What might that be? And what sort of work might they do when they get there? It depends on whom you ask.

To the military’s sharpest critics, the legacy of these last 10 years includes an acute absence of debate as the army shed its “peacekeeping” image. 

“I view it as a fight for the soul of Canada and the way we view the world — and the fight continues,” said Steven Staples, who has locked horns with Canada’s military brass from his perch as president of the Ottawa-based Rideau Institute, an independent research and advocacy group.

“The abandonment of peacekeeping arguably started pre-9/11, but it has certainly been stuck in the basement ever since. 

“But the massive increase in Canada’s military spending has come with a massive expansion of the military’s political power in Ottawa. . . There is plenty more money and power in play, but not nearly enough questions about what we want the Canadian Forces to be doing on Canada’s behalf.”

Staples readily acknowledges Canadians are now “more aware and supportive of soldiers.” But he suggests the transformation came about, in part, by design, courtesy of the Department of National Defence headquarters in Ottawa. 

“I’m not saying it is a façade. There is a very real increase in people attending Nov. 11 ceremonies. But the military spends millions in pubic relations campaigns and that, in part, is what delivers its political clout. So how much of this is a legitimate shift and how much of it is very well-crafted emblems for the media to cover. I’m not sure.”

One especially outspoken critic is Col. (Ret.) Pat Stogran, who led the very first mission to Kandahar in 2002. Today, he doubts the Canadian Forces have actually changed as much as some believe. Neither, he says, has Canada.

When Stogran landed in early 2002, the Kandahar Airfield that would eventually grow into a veritable NATO city, with Tim Hortons double-doubles and a ball-hockey rink, was a burned-out wasteland mired in ankle-deep dust.

But nearby Kandahar City was then a place where foreign journalists could tread unhindered, even after nightfall. One encountered grinning Pashtun tribesmen everywhere, not only delighted to be free of austere Taliban rule but anticipating their lives were about to be transformed for the better by these welcome outsiders.

Stogran, who was ousted from his later position as Canada’s Veterans Ombudsman for being too adamant on behalf of vets, returned to Kandahar three months ago as a civilian. He came away with deep misgivings — convinced Canadians have effectively “lost” the war, yet immensely proud of what rank-and-file soldiers made of the impossible task they were handed.

“The units on the ground did tremendously well — they never lost a single tactical engagement. They truly are worthy of every scrap of praise Canadians can offer,” Stogran told the Star.

“But in my view, the generals let down the troops with a flawed strategy. Instead of focusing on building up Kandahar, economically and diplomatically, we ended up just blindly going in and started whacking Taliban.”

Canada’s charismatic former top soldier, Gen. Rick Hillier, is widely regarded as the key to the Canadian Forces rebranding. The shoot-from-the-hip Newfoundlander seemed, midway through the 9/11 decade, to have achieved a rare fusion with Canadian popular opinion. 

But Hillier’s hawkish rhetoric — like his famed denunciation of the Taliban as “scumbags and murderers” — came with a battle posture that “did more to disadvantage Canadian Forces in the longer term anything else,” said Stogran.

“Hillier lost the war with Vietnam-style tactics. We should have been there like a police force. We didn’t need tanks, we needed to hound CCM to build a bicycle factory and create some jobs. Instead, we ended up clawing over and killing a lot of Afghan civilians in the rush to get at the bad guys.

“The U.S. will declare victory, undoubtedly, and pull out in 2014. And by 2016, probably, the bubble will break like Saigon. It’s a travesty.”

There was a time, Stogran admits, when he resented the “Canadian peacekeeper” label, because the frontline-troop reality in past missions to places such as Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda never matched the myth.

“I hated the word ‘peacekeeper’ when I got back from Bosnia because it implied some sort of bloodless offering with no real danger.. . . It was war, and yet a soldier injured in the line of duty was supposedly no more than an industrial accident,” said Stogran.

“But when I left Afghanistan, I found myself with a new appreciation for our ‘peacekeeping’ legacy because what we were facing in Kandahar, I would submit, is not really all that different.

“That’s where the lessons learned are going to be important. Because in this new security environment we live in, if the future is about winning hearts and minds, Canada has the potential to be a superpower. As long as we don’t believe in flexing our muscles to kill people.”

The other paradox throughout the 9/11 years has been access — an unprecedented flow of journalists to the front lines, even as the flow of information tightened with each passing year. 

Simple questions that once prompted immediate answers began to drag out into multi-day delays, as public affairs officers on the ground passed the query up the food chain for approval from Ottawa. 

It’s a dynamic familiar to Sharon Hobson, one of Canada’s longest-serving defence correspondents, who has written for Jane’s Defence Weekly since 1985. Hobson, who sits on the advisory council of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, says the information flow from DND HQ has tightened to a trickle.

OPSEC — or operational security — is often cited when reporters get shut down on basic queries. But unlike many of Canada’s NATO allies, the long shadow of OPSEC extends to the wounded, with the extent of injuries in recent years a de facto state secret.

U.S. forces, by contrast, update casualty counts once a month, while the U.K. freshens its tally of killed and injured in Afghanistan every two weeks. Canada is not expected to reveal its number of wounded for 2011 until early next year. And we may never know how badly the survivors were hurt.

OPSEC also stretches like a blanket over Joint Task Force 2, Canada’s special forces, a unit that is widely believed to have seen more action since 9/11 than any other. But the elite team, which doubled in size to approximately 600, has never been glimpsed in the field. Or rather, those among us who’ve seen them have never been allowed, under the terms of embedding, to write about it. 

Says Hobson: “Of course we all understand the obvious need for secrecy when it comes to special forces. But what about six months or a year later, when the mission is long over? We should know the kinds of things they are engaging in. It can be done because other countries do it. We just don’t do it here.

“Now with the embedding program, the irony is there are more reporters than ever getting to know something about the military — but you can’t get detailed information like before. You rarely get interviews. Instead, what you get is an email with bullet points approved by the Privy Council Office and very general. We used to be let in on the big picture. Now you just get fragments.”

Which, argues Hobson, is not merely an occupational annoyance. Our ability as citizens to weigh in on Canada’s military future is at risk.

“The Canadian public needs to know what the Canadian military is doing in its name. We, as citizens, have a responsibility to make decisions,” she says. 

“But that depends on getting the information. If Canadians don’t even know about it, they can’t think about it, let alone ask questions.”


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jul 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The American approach (?):
> 
> http://outsidethewire.com/blog/afghanistan/argendahb-awakening.html



1.  Nothing new to this approach - we started doing that in 2007 with the establishment of the COP line in Panjwayi district.

2.  The oft-flouted phrase "separate the insurgent from the people" has no meaning in this - anyone who has been to Zharei district knows that separating the two is like separating water from water.  That district, for a whole bevy of reasons, is quite restless.

3.  Talk of the "surge" as a success in Iraq is debateable - there is some literature out there that presents the case that the violence was dying down before Patraeus and "The Surge".  Thus thinking one can surge anywhere to stamp out insurgencies with bike stores is a fools errand.

4.  Of course there is a change in the situation when you garrison every hamlet in a restless Kandahar district - but is this a feasible operational concept?

5.  As for "nobody can look you in the eyes" Stogran's opinions on Afghanistan in the following article, I'll chalk those up to the usual blah from the twice-cashiered attention hound.  For him to insuinate that we should have ignored the conventional insurgent threat outside of KC and focused on bike production indicates to me his level of knowledge on this....


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Oct 2011)

Highlights mine - shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office was so seized with controlling public opinion of Canada's shooting war in southern Afghanistan that even Defence Minister Peter MacKay wasn't always in the loop, says a new book about the conflict.
> 
> _"The Savage War,"_ by Canadian Press defence writer and Afghanistan correspondent Murray Brewster, paints a portrait of a PMO keen to preserve its tenuous grip on minority power and desperate to control the message amid dwindling public support for the war.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 2 Oct 11


----------



## Journeyman (2 Oct 2011)

Kids, this is what they call "revisionist history." From the article posted above, note how Jack Layton is a now central character, even though the NDP were practically meaningless in 2005-2010? Note how the pathetic "news" of current CF flight use by sitting Parliamentarians, which conveniently ignores the facts about even greater usage by previous governments, is used desperately to market this tabloid book?

From Amazon.ca 


> *From the Inside Flap*
> Canadian combat troops have returned from Afghan-istan. Ten years, 157 dead, many more seriously wounded. Canadians are asking if the sacrifice was worth it. What did our efforts actually accomplish? Is the future of the Afghan people any more secure or hopeful? For most, the war in Afghanistan remains one of the most remote, misunderstood and mysterious events of their lifetime.
> 
> Murray Brewster, award-winning veteran defense correspondent for The Canadian Press, has covered the war in Afghanistan from Kandahar and forward-operating bases, the corridors of power in Ottawa and Washington, and NATO headquarters. He is courageous and tenacious, a journalist whose hard work resulted in interviews with Canadian troops, officials and warlords alike. He broke the story of Ottawa's attempts to silence whistle-blower Richard Colvin's story of tortured Afghan prisoners.
> ...


Wow, I sure hope Vin Diesel plays Murray Brewster   :


I'll pass   _~yawn~ _     :boring:


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Oct 2011)

Did this author ask any one of the parents, widows or kids of the fallen?


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Oct 2011)

Mr Brewster is a Canadian, er, journalist.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Tow Tripod (3 Oct 2011)

SUM UP!! We neither won or lost this war.Only time will tell if we made even an ounce of difference.Yes I have grown skeptical from 2006 until now


----------



## Foxhound (3 Oct 2011)

Working for peace in Afghanistan - Toronto Sun , online edition.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/03/working-for-peace-in-afghanistan



> KABUL, AFGHANISTAN - “It will be looked back upon that the Canadians got it right,” — ISAF Gen. Carsten Jacobson, of Germany.
> Who says Canada is no longer contributing in Afghanistan?
> Many assume that just because Canada has pulled out combat troops our work has been completed.
> It’s not what I witnessed.
> In fact, Canadians are everywhere and making a difference.



More at link

I agree.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Oct 2011)

Defence Minister says, "Was NOT":


> Embattled Defence Minister Peter MacKay is under fire again, this time over accusations that the prime minister kept him in the dark about the Conservative government's decision to review Canada's Afghan mission.
> 
> MacKay took over as head of the Ministry of Defence in August 2007 and the government undertook an independent review of Canada's role in the Afghan war later that year.
> 
> ...


CTV.ca, 3 Oct 11

For the record, here's a transcript of the exchange from Oral Questions yesterday:


> _Mr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP):_  Mr. Speaker, according to a release by Canadian Press, the defence minister was kept out of key decisions about Canada's role in the Afghan war.  This was a top defence priority, yet the Prime Minister was calling all the shots. The Prime Minister could have used some advice. Most agree our efforts should have focused more on peace talks and diplomacy.  Is Prime Minister still making foreign policy and defence decisions on his own, or does he now let his cabinet in the room?
> 
> _Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC):_  Mr. Speaker, we have always worked closely with the Prime Minister and with cabinet.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (6 Oct 2011)

Afghanistan And The Culture Of Survival
October 6, 2011
Article Link

 Afghan soldiers and police have a major morale problem, and it's more cultural than anything else. Traditionally, Afghans fight in clan or tribal groups. That means you are going into battle with people who know you, or at least know your family. Whatever you do in combat, will become known to your entire family, neighbors and so on. In other words, you will live with it for the rest of your life. This does wonders for morale and performance. But take away all those connections, and your morale and effectiveness take a big hit. This is what happens when someone joins the Afghan army or police.

In many parts of Afghanistan, the police and soldiers are recruited into units with people from the same clan or tribe. Western advisors often discourage this, because all that familiarity makes corruption easier. But it's been found that the corruption is there no matter what you do.

But even when you have company or battalion size units from the same clan or tribe, you still have the problem with how armies fight, versus the methods tribal warriors (and the Taliban) traditionally use. While the tribal warriors appear reckless and careless, they actually put a lot of emphasis on avoiding defeat, and casualties. In other words, they favor the ambush over the frontal assault. Retreating quickly and frequently is a standard procedure. While the Taliban preach the virtue of dying as a holy warrior, most Taliban gunmen seek to put off death as long as they can. Not that the Afghans are wimps when it comes to fighting, but they live in an area where the average lifespan is about half of what it is in the West. There are far more ways to die in Afghanistan, even if you are not in the army, or some militia or criminal gang. One survey found that 15 percent of people living in tribal societies die violent deaths, which is five times the rate for people in non-tribal cultures.

With so much danger around them, Afghans adapt, and fighting the same way as westerners do is not attractive. Not unless they have all the tools the Westerners   possess. Not just the body armor, but the on-call air and artillery support and high quality medical care (including prompt helicopter medevac flights.) The Afghans also want the expert and highly trained leadership, all the way from sergeants to senior generals. If they get this, they will more willingly "fight like the foreign soldiers." But in the meantime, the Afghans tend to be less aggressive and enthusiastic when fighting. One exception is when foreign troops are involved, at that point the Afghan feel compelled to be competitive.

The problem is, the Afghans will never have all of the stuff foreign troop's use, not for a few decades anyway. Too many Afghans are illiterate, and there are a not enough technical skills in the population to supply all the support services Western troops have. So the Afghan troops appear, to Western forces, as hesitant and not-very-enthusiastic. The reality is that the Afghans are just trying to live longer under much more adverse circumstances than Western troops face. 
end


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2011)

An interesting, albeit, given the author, suspect review of a brother journalist's book (which I have not read) on Afghanistan, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-war-in-afghanistan/article2194918/


> Setting the record straight on the war in Afghanistan
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
> ...




It is probably true that journalists get to write "the first draft of history," along with a few generals and politicians, and fifty or one hundred years from now Mr. Brewster's book will be a source - one among many. But Mr. Brewster, whose book I have yet to bother reading, is not a historian and his book is not, I can 100% guarantee it, a valid historical account of anything except his *personal perceptions* of what he read, saw and heard. Martin, quoting Brewster tries to make _"schools, polio vaccinations, women’s rights,_ [and]_ toys for boys and girls"_ unimportant compared to or, at least, less important than _"unemployment, an absence of electricity and high prices."_ Clearly, or it ought to be clear, they all matter to varying degrees in varying times and places. If Brewster really believes what Martin thinks he said then I am less and less inclined to bother reading his book. Finally, Martin says, _"Brewster finds “a hypersensitive, über-secret government and bureaucracy gone wild.”_ If the government and its bureaucracy was even slightly secret, let alone "über-secret," then Brewster, journalists in general, busybodies and assorted commissioners would not have _found_ a bloody thing. That Brewster found anything was because the whole mess was 'conducted' out in the open, with too little regard for security or the needs of history.

It is my fervent hope that 35 years from the archives will be opened and we you (I'll be long dead and buried) will discover that some good politicians, bureaucrats and generals lied like sidewalks and misled the media and the enemy - who might be mistaken for one another.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an insightful article by David Bercuson and Jack Granatstein:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/afghanistans-lessons-werent-just-military/article2201783/


> Afghanistan’s lessons weren’t just military
> 
> DAVID BERCUSON AND J.L. GRANATSTEIN
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> ...




To answer the question in the opening paragraph, I don't think Canadians, _per se_, learned much of anything. A more pertinent question is: what did politicians and senior bureaucrats and senior military folks learn?

The answers are, or should be:

1. Numbers matter and we, Canada, in 2011 do not have enough. We have too few ships and too few sailors; we have too few soldiers, too few tanks and guns, too little service support and so on; and we have too few aircraft and too few men and women to fly and maintain them. We have a sufficiency of admirals and generals and, probably, of "captains and majors and half colonels, too; hands in their pockets etc."

2. NATO is not a good organization to conduct a complex military operation out of its own area. It is too big, too cumbersome, too political and too bureaucratic. There is an old saying that the maximum span of control for a leader or manager is 10. Maybe it is the same with alliances and operational management - maybe some sort of standing (permanent) _forum_ with, say, at least five but less than ten members is needed to manage and conduct _coalition_ military operations.

3. While Canada ought not to try to conduct _unilateral_ combat operations, low intensity - maybe involving some combat - operations *must* be within our capabilities and we, Canada, must be prepared and willing to conduct them. That calls up strategic planning, strategic transport and logistical capabilities that we do not have (enough of) right now.

4. Military operations are never going to be very popular - we had trouble sustaining public support for Wold War II after five years, and if there was ever a "good" war that was worth the price, that was it. Governments must find ways to _manipulate_ public opinion (yes, I know, I'm _justifying_ Noam Chomsky, but we can, do and should _manipulate_ opinion) to weaken the opposition to military operations.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Oct 2011)

Not Afghanistan - but it goes to the conduct of future wars......

Globe and Mail



> ....But Mr. Harper, slow to embrace the first Arab Spring rebellions, was forceful in responding to Col. Gadhafi’s repression: He dispatched a frigate March 1, weeks before intervention was certain, sent a pointed Canadian force when only eight allies joined strikes and committed to stay through months of stalemate.
> 
> Mr. Harper’s argument that Canada needs military power and the willingness to deploy it could be boosted by victory in Libya, said Christian Leuprecht, a Queen’s University and Royal Military College professor.
> 
> But it might also crystallize the Libya mission model – brief, conducted by air strikes with no ground troops risking casualties, as the muscle Canadians will support. “We’re not going to be doing an Afghanistan mission again, the kind of long-term massive troop commitments,” he said. “I think they’re going to be elements like this where we might be there for a few weeks or a few months.”



The "Libya Model" would also be "The Northern Alliance Model"  and arguably the "Sierra Leone Model"  or even the "Oman Model".

Lots of technology and a light footprint working with the locals.

Whoever wrote that "Mission Accomplished" banner had it right the first time.  Fire and Retire.... and let the locals sort it out.

Edit: - Oman is the wrong analogy - The foot print was light and the locals were engaged - but the campaign was protracted, perhaps in part due to the lesser technologies available.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2011)

Post mortem of the political issues:

http://unambig.com/the-cbc-helped-to-destroy-the-afghan-mission/



> *The CBC helped destroy the Afghan Mission*
> 
> Posted October 28th, 2011 in Afghanistan and tagged Afghanistan, Canada, CBC, Harper, Harper government, media by Adrian MacNair
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Post mortem of the political issues:
> 
> http://unambig.com/the-cbc-helped-to-destroy-the-afghan-mission/


Good piece - thanks for sharing.

Brian Stewart's come some way since his 2007 piece (PDF transcript here) on suspicions by un-named sources that Canada had some mysterious influence with the Afghan government via the Strategic Advisory Team.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Post mortem of the political issues:
> 
> http://unambig.com/the-cbc-helped-to-destroy-the-afghan-mission/


And Steven Staples' response to the piece (via Twitter)?


> Generals blame everyone but themselves. @milnews_ca: "The CBC Helped To Destroy The Afghan Mission" (Unambig Ambidex) http://t.co/TTlYCmrI"


----------



## Journeyman (30 Oct 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And Steven Staples' response to the piece (via Twitter)?


Don't open it....don't open it......_~d'oh~_....why do I do that to myself?   :facepalm:



(Speaking of trying to create an anti-Harper political feeding frenzy, while completely ignoring the war itself...   : )


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2011)

Stephen Staples and his ilk neither know nor do they care about Afghanistan or the Afghan peoplel nor are they interested in Canadian foreign policy or even in the welfare of the world. What they believe about which they do *care* is what Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada _might_ do to The Entitlement Party of Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jan 2012)

Some interesting speculation about *why* we went to Kandahar, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/doug-saunders/canada-picked-its-kandahar-moment/article2294450/
*Note:* the piece is interesting despite the anti-military/anti-mission _spin_ the author (Saunders) applies.


> Canada picked its Kandahar moment
> 
> DOUG SAUNDERS
> 
> ...




Ignore the first and last paragraphs - they are utter, complete *crap*.

Focus first on the comments by Matthew Willis of the RUSI. They, especially the parts about the "lessons" about allies learned in the Balkans, squares with rumours I heard in _demi-official_ Ottawa.

Focus also on the penultimate paragraph. Saunders says: _"It is discomforting to think that this dangerous war was prolonged beyond the ouster of al-Qaeda in order to further interests of organizational pride and stature."_ No, it isn't - _national_ *stature* matters, it is a big part of "soft power" (*real* soft power not the soft headed soft power envisioned by e.g. Pink Lloyd Axworthy and the other Trudeauistas) and national stature is a compilatin of the statures of those actors, like the CF, that matter in the world.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jan 2012)

Quite an interesting spin, which seems to be slanted to get Paul Martin et al off the hook. The story, however, is a secondary source based on the writer's interpretation of Mister Willis' yet to be published paper.

Was not the move to Khandahar seen to have been a result of dithering at the highest levels in Ottawa until the safer billets were taken? At least that was the interpretation at the time circa 2005-2006. That is not quite what the story implies, which has a more sinister explanation of machinations by British and Canadian officialdom. One could also put a more positive spin on the plan: the key to control of Afghanistan was keeping the Taliban at bay, and their power base was in the south. Therefore the vital ground is the south, and that is where the Brits and ourselves went, and that was were the Americans later largely surged.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Jan 2012)

I read this:


> What on earth were we doing in Kandahar? Now that it’s all over, that question hangs in the air. Decades hence, students will be stumped by that question in much the same way I was when my high-school textbook opened to Canada’s place in the Boer War. It was full of sound and fury, but signifying exactly what? How did we pour five years, more than $18-billion and 158 lives into something so large and nebulous? *How do we avoid repeating the mistake?*


Then I stopped reading, because no matter the argument, I could not agree with that assumption.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jan 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I read this:Then I stopped reading, because no matter the argument, I could not agree with that assumption.




That's why I said, _'Ignore the first and last paragraphs - they are utter, complete crap."_


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jan 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Was not the move to Khandahar seen to have been a result of dithering at the highest levels in Ottawa until the safer billets were taken? At least that was the interpretation at the time circa 2005-2006.



If Gross Stein and Lang's argument is to be believed (and it seemed like a good explanation) Canada was focused on Kandahar from the start; the military wanted to do some heavy lifting and Paul Martin's government wanted to reinvent itself on the international stage.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jan 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If Gross Stein and Lang's argument is to be believed (and it seemed like a good explanation) Canada was focused on Kandahar from the start; the military wanted to do some heavy lifting and Paul Martin's government wanted to reinvent itself on the international stage.




But that is not inconsistent with a _plan_, developed outside of NATO, to avoid serving with selected allies.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jan 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If Gross Stein and Lang's argument is to be believed (and it seemed like a good explanation) Canada was focused on Kandahar from the start; the military wanted to do some heavy lifting and Paul Martin's government wanted to reinvent itself on the international stage.



Which also reinforces the vital ground argument. If true, we got our wish, as the majority of NATO certainly stayed away from the south and the fighting.

This paragraph seems to be the worst type of revisionsim, or sloppy research, or both. 

_The process that led from Canada’s modest 2001 participation in the Kabul operation into the five-year semi-colonial Kandahar odyssey that began in 2006 remains something of a mystery. I’ve heard diplomatic and military officials of very high rank tell me they don’t really know how Canada became embroiled. Al-Qaeda had already been banished from Afghanistan by the time we entered the south. Our soldiers were professional, extremely courageous, calmly civilized and never quite sure what had caused them to be there._

Our first participation, starting with SOF in late 2001 and then 3 PPCLI in 2002, was in Kandahar. It was not until 2003 that we joined ISAF in Kabul.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Jan 2012)

Any study of our participation in military operations in Afghanistan ought to cover from 11 September 2001 to present.  From the first overt action that is clearly linked to us being there.  Let us not forget that in 2002, when 3 PPCLI's "tour" was close to being a few months long and the questions were "who would replace them?" were being surfaced, then-PM Jean Chretien muttered along the lines of "we have nobody to replace them with..."  Then, as the war drums were beating for Iraq a few months after they redeployed, and Canada was sitting on a fence, saying neither "yes" nor "no" to participation in any enforcement of UN resolutions on Iraq in terms of offensive military action, it was suddenly announced that "2000 troops" would deploy to Kabul to participate as part of the ISAF mission there.  Then the tune turned to "Sorry, USA, we don't have any troops left to help you...."  (Of course, that tune later turned into "we told the big, bad USA "no!"": revisionism at its best). 

In short, no study ought to look at one part whilst conveniently ignoring the rest, or worse, making inane judgements that cloud the entire argument.  Even worse would be factual errors.  Given all of this, the previously posted article warrants none of my effort to read given its blatant revisionist recounting of Canadian military operations in Afghanistan.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Jan 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ...This paragraph seems to be the worst type of revisionsim, or sloppy research, or both.
> 
> _The process that led from Canada’s modest 2001 participation in the Kabul operation into the five-year semi-colonial Kandahar odyssey that began in 2006 remains something of a mystery. I’ve heard diplomatic and military officials of very high rank tell me they don’t really know how Canada became embroiled. Al-Qaeda had already been banished from Afghanistan by the time we entered the south. Our soldiers were professional, extremely courageous, calmly civilized and never quite sure what had caused them to be there._
> 
> Our first participation, starting with SOF in late 2001 and then 3 PPCLI in 2002, was in Kandahar. It was not until 2003 that we joined ISAF in Kabul.



Fully concur.  :nod:

Saunders kind of has his head up his behind if he thinks that the Special Operations Forces in 2001 and LCol (Ret'd) Pat Stogran's PPCLI battle group in 2002, both in Kandahar, were a "modest 2001 participation in the Kabul operation".

This shows Saunders rather poor research style coupled with a rather disingenuous writing style that tries to conveniently remove elements of the reality on the ground that don't fit with how he would like his readership to believe things truly happened.  Perhaps Saunders was the only person in Canada who missed the furor when the pictures of JTF2 assaulters escorting Al Queda detainees out of an American MH-53 hit the press?  ???

I think I would put more faith in an OPED piece from the _National Enquirer_ than I would in Saunders' musings.  :

Regards
G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2012)

Here is a link to the RUSI paper around which Saunders built his 'report.'


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2012)

Sounds like "The Accidental War" plot of evil General Hillier tricking Prime Minister Martin into the mission is going to be the preferred "narrative" from this point on, and we will be seeing more and more "papers", opinions and books based on this narrative unless (and until) a stake can be driven through its heart.

These "narratives" have enduring power; I am talking to my daughter about her high school history course and they are still teaching the "Canadians are peacekeepers" myth, rather than teaching UN peacekeeping was an economy of force effort supporting the main Cold War effort in Europe. I can only imagine what our children are going to be taught about our mission in Afghanistan.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is a link to the RUSI paper around which Saunders built his 'report.'


And I note he doesn't share it, trusting us to trust HIS cherry picking summary of said report....


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jan 2012)

If, and it's a big IF, what Saunders says Matthew Willis says is accurate then, early in the last decade, during the Chrétien/Martin era, we - the (just some?) agents of the Government of Canada - actively sought a _better_ role in world affairs and we - those agents of the government, again - did so based upon some hard lessons learned during our (1990s) missions in the Balkans; lessons about who, amongst our putative allies, can and cannot be trusted.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If, and it's a big IF, what Saunders says Matthew Willis says is accurate then, early in the last decade, during the Chrétien/Martin era, we - the (just some?) agents of the Government of Canada - actively sought a _better_ role in world affairs and we - those agents of the government, again - did so based upon some hard lessons learned during our (1990s) missions in the Balkans; lessons about who, amongst our putative allies, can and cannot be trusted.


Wonder if Willis even knows about the Saunders piece yet?


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Apr 2012)

Here we go again with the "are we in, or are we out?" message dance - highlights mine


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper has opened the door to Canadian special forces staying in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of NATO forces in 2014.
> 
> There are reports that the Pentagon has asked the Conservative government to consider leaving a contingent behind in the war-ravaged nation to help train Afghan commandos and to keep up the fight against al-Qaida and Taliban militants.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 25 Apr 12


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Apr 2012)

More from the PM on the future of the Afghan mission from Hansard:


> Mr. Speaker, I have been told that we have not had that specific request from the United States. Whether it comes or not, I will be very clear, Canada will make its own determination in this regard. We have our forces there now to help train the Afghan security forces because it is in the interests of our country that Afghanistan does not become once again a safe haven for terrorism and also in our interest that, in order to prevent that, the Afghans themselves assume greater responsibility for their own security. Our government will make any decisions it makes with the best interests of our own country and the world community in mind .... it is not a remarkable statement that the NDP will not support the mission. The NDP could not even make up its mind to support the World War II mission. Canada has been involved in Afghanistan with the support of most of the parties in the House for some years. Our plan at the current time is, obviously, for the mission that goes to 2014, but, as we approach that date, we will examine all options and we will take the decision that is in the best interests of this country and in the best interests of our security objectives for the globe, and not an ideological knee-jerk response like the NDP .... all of the military missions committed to under this government have come before the House: the mission in Libya, which the House approved; we did not begin the mission to Afghanistan but the extensions of that mission. Certainly, should there be any other significant military missions, we are committed to getting the consent of Parliament before we act. That has been our action and that is what we will do in the future.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Apr 2012)

More from the PM on the future of the Afghan mission, from Hansard:


> Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister left the door wide open to extending Canada's military mission in Afghanistan beyond 2014. He spouted rhetoric and stated that the government had not received this specific request, despite the fact that reliable military sources have told the media that a request was in fact received from the United States.  Is the Prime Minister saying that the United States has not made any contact whatsoever with Canada regarding the possible extension of the mission in Afghanistan?
> 
> Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I said that I have had no such contact.  I also said that our priorities remain the same, namely, to ensure that Afghanistan is safe so that it does not become a threat to our security and to ensure that Afghans themselves assume greater responsibility for their own security.
> 
> ...



To clarify the "the CCF leader didn't support WW2" vs. the previous day's "The NDP could not even make up its mind to support the World War II mission", here's the rest of the story from the Socialist History Project


> .... The CCF’s 1933 Regina Manifesto was very clear on war. It said:
> 
> "We stand resolutely against all participation in imperialist wars…. Canada must refuse to be entangled in any more wars fought to make the world safe for capitalism."
> 
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Apr 2012)

It's starting to be a requirement that "Should I stay or should I go" by The Clash will have to be the march past for this mission.


----------



## TN2IC (29 Apr 2012)

Always tease tease tease
You’re happy when I’m on my knees
One day is fine, next day is black
So if you want me off your back
Well come on and let me know
Should I stay or should I go?​


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Apr 2012)

At this rate I may even get a tour in.


----------



## TN2IC (30 Apr 2012)

I don't mind another tour. 

He he he, see you there Jim.   ;D


Should I stay or should I go now?
Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
And if I stay it will be double
So come on and let me know.....

Should I stay or should I go?


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Apr 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It's starting to be a requirement that "Should I stay or should I go" by The Clash will have to be the march past for this mission.


Good one!



			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> At this rate I may even get a tour in.


With a majority government, never say never, right?


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Apr 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> At this rate I may even get a tour in.



LFWA has the last kick at the cat for Op Attention. At that point it'll be easier as a Snr NCO to get positions than a Cpl!


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Apr 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> LFWA has the last kick at the cat for Op Attention. At that point it'll be easier as a Snr NCO to get positions than a Cpl!


As an MWO/CWO?

Doubt it.


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Apr 2012)

You'd be surprised how many of them are floating around here.


----------



## Redeye (30 Apr 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You'd be surprised how many of them are floating around here.



No kidding. And how they're inventing ways to amuse/occupy themselves at the expense of troops in certain cases...


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Apr 2012)

My MWO from 09 was back with the Valcartier Roto last year.  It's possible, Jim.


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 May 2012)

> The Taliban’s revenge
> A new generation of militants is rising in Afghanistan, turning its sights on former allies
> by Adnan R. Khan on Tuesday, May 8, 2012 9:38am
> 
> ...



I suppose it should not come as much of a surprise in the end.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 May 2012)

> "The head of NATO says he wants Canadian soldiers to extend their stay in Afghanistan beyond 2014. While Ottawa has said 900 of our remaining troops will be coming home in a couple of years, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said training Afghanistan's army is going to take time, and he wants the Canadian Forces to stay longer. "I appreciate very much that Canada provides trainers for our training mission in Afghanistan and I hope Canada will be in a position to continue that contribution also after 2014," Rasmussen said Monday in an exclusive interview with Global National's Sean Mallen at NATO's headquarters in Brussels. "From that time on, the Afghans will have full responsibility, but they still need our assistance and this is the reason why we will continue a training mission," the NATO Secretary General added. "And I hope Canada will continue to support our training mission." *It appears Prime Minister Stephen Harper is open to keeping Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan a little longer. "We will assess what is necessary to make sure that Afghanistan continues to progress toward being a state that is not a threat to global security, and that is able to take care of its own security," he said in Ottawa on Monday. "Those are our objectives and beyond that, we haven't made any final decisions."* ...."


Global News, 14 May 12


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 May 2012)

> The Canadian Forces mission in Afghanistan to train the country's army will end in 2014 as planned despite entreaties from NATO to extend the deployment, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Sunday.
> 
> At a meeting of NATO leaders in Chicago, MacKay said Canada has "been a major contributor" to the Afghan war "since the very beginning" and has done more than its fair share. Canada will continue to contribute to Afghanistan in ways other than military personnel, he said. It's believed that would include financial assistance and development aid.
> 
> ...


CBC.ca, 21 May 12


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 May 2012)

> Prime Minister Stephen Harper today confirmed that Canada's military mission in Afghanistan will come to a firm and final end once the current training mission concludes on March 31, 2014. The Prime Minister made the announcement at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit in Chicago.
> 
> "For more than a decade, the brave men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces, the RCMP, and many dedicated public servants and civilians have made enormous sacrifices to assist the Afghan people," said the Prime Minister. "Canada will honour its commitment and complete its current training mission but our country will not have any military mission in Afghanistan after March 2014."
> 
> ...


PM Info-machine, 21 May 12


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 May 2012)

.... on the mission - highlights mine:





> “Good afternoon everybody.
> 
> “I’d like to thank President Obama for hosting two very productive summits this week.
> 
> ...


PMO Info-machine, 21 May 12


----------



## a_majoor (6 Oct 2012)

Perhaps not a direct match to this thread, here is a photo essay of Afghanistan in the 50's and 60's; before the start of the Civil War, Soviet Invasion, battles between Muhajadin factions, the takover by the Taliban and the Allied liberation. Afghanistan was a reasonably modern nation by the standards of the day, and certainly bringing them back to where they were should be reason enough....

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/04/pictures-of-afghanistan-in-the-fifties-a



> *Pictures of Afghanistan in the Fifties and Sixties Are Totally Depressing*
> Tim Cavanaugh|Oct. 4, 2012 2:45 pm
> 
> "Given the images people see on TV, many conclude Afghanistan never made it out of the Middle Ages," writes Mohammad Qayoumi at Retronaut. "But that is not the Afghanistan I remember. I grew up in Kabul in the 1950s and ’60s. Stirred by the fact that news portrayals of the country’s history didn’t mesh with my own memories, I wanted to discover the truth."
> ...


----------



## KevinB (8 Oct 2012)

An unfortunate truth about Afghanistan, it reverted back to the stone age, some might take that as a warning for the rest of 'civilization'.

I had a girlfriend who's mother had been there in the 60's and 70's, the changes are horrifying.


----------

