# Lost in Afghanistan, Ott, Citizen Opinion Article



## kilekaldar (10 Jun 2005)

Here's the link to it. http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=cc5a2273-90bb-4918-8d49-bd3f567b9a7d
Any reactions to this?


*Lost in Afghanistan
As Canada prepares to move its forces to the troubled Kandahar region, it must consider whether it's making an impact on the war-torn nation
  
Colin Kenny 
Citizen Special 
Friday, June 10, 2005

Canada's military presence in Afghanistan is based on sound premises. Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically mean what our troops are doing there -- and will do there -- will have much of an effect on Afghanistan's future, or the future of the world.

The original invasion of Afghanistan was a response to the al-Qaeda-led attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the fanatical Taliban, a cruel and despotic regime providing al-Qaeda sanctuary. Afghanistan was a hotbed for terrorist training, and Canada's commitment to fighting terrorism made our participation a no-brainer.

Threats to the security of Canadians are best fought as far away from Canada's borders as possible. Afghanistan represents a case study of trying to eradicate a threat before it arrives on our doorstep.

There are 700 Canadian troops in Kabul, the now relatively peaceful capital, down from the 2,000 that participated in the first rotation of Canada's NATO mission, and fewer than the 1,250 that will be in more-volatile Kandahar by February (250 will move in August).

This is our largest overseas deployment by far right now. If we are going to be there, we should be performing as effectively as possible. Are we? Will we? Is there really any chance of being effective, of transforming this society into anything resembling a peaceful democracy?

I visited Kabul recently as part of an attempt by the Senate committee on national security and defence to get a handle on some of these questions.

We spent $115.9 million on in-theatre operations in Afghanistan last fiscal year. Because Canada is moving on to a new mission, one might argue that there is no point in dwelling on how well it has fulfilled its latest one. But given the commitment of scarce Canadian resources, Canadians should be assured that we will be getting bang for our buck as we move forward.

The current commitment clearly has more tail than teeth. Because of the need to maintain our base at Camp Julien, provide security for it, and man a rapid-reaction force for NATO's personnel across Kabul, we get a limited product for our 700-person deployment.

The main components of that are: a reconnaissance squadron supporting a nearby German Provincial Reconstruction Team; a group of 14 personnel evaluating British, American and French efforts to train the Afghan Army; and some intelligence gathering.

That isn't much for such a large commitment of money and people, especially when there is little to no interaction with the local population.

One would have thought that Kabul would have been the ideal place for Canadian troops to maximize their interaction with Afghans -- to take the helmets off from time to time and try to humanize the NATO mission and earn some genuine respect and admiration from the locals.

It's not for a politician to say where and when this kind of interchange is possible -- that's up to local commanders. However, it is important. And if it isn't possible in Kabul, it is extremely doubtful it is going to be possible in Kandahar, where the Taliban remains an elusive and powerful presence.

What we saw in Kabul in terms of winning hearts and minds wasn't encouraging. We saw Canadian soldiers accelerating through the streets inside their armoured vehicles, decked out in helmets, sunglasses and scarves to protect them from the incessant dust, machine guns swivelling at the ready.

Maybe that was just a snapshot. Maybe there has been plenty of interchange in recent months and we just didn't see any of it or hear about any of it. Let's hope.

But the "Triple D" concept -- combining defence with diplomacy and development -- is supposed to be at the core of Canada's approach to reconstructing failed post-Cold War states, yet there appeared to be little connection between Canada's military presence in Kabul and its diplomatic presence: the Canadian Embassy.

So, is Canada likely to mount a more meaningful contribution toward the rebuilding of Afghanistan when new troops move into Kandahar in August? Gen. Rick Hillier, newly appointed chief of defence staff, testified before our committee on May 30, and suggested, for a start, the force going to Kandahar would focus more on the product.

"I am a little concerned about the ratio of the number of people required to support versus the number of people who operate ... we have to be more ruthless ... if we put 200 men and women in uniform, having another 500-plus contractors to support that in-theatre is something that draws my attention right away."

Everything has to go right in Kandahar. It is a far more dangerous place than Kabul. Even when U.S. forces have scored successes in knocking out large cadres of Taliban fighters, reports indicate that these are quickly replenished by new fighters from Pakistan.

Kandahar will present the increased likelihood of combat, and Canadian fatalities. That is inevitably what you get when you intervene anywhere the bad guys are still a force, and the Taliban is surely still a force in Afghanistan. For the most part, their fighters prefer to engage, retreat to the mountains and wait for the right moment to engage again.

This raises two questions. The first is whether the Canadian government is ready for the risks that will come with the move to Kandahar. It had better be, and it had better ensure the troops are as well supported as they can be.

Second, is there any hope of making a difference?

There is not just a fierceness to the Taliban and their fellow travellers. There is an incredible patience. This patience sustained the relentless opposition to the Soviet occupation of the 1980s. These people exhausted the mighty Soviet military and drained the Soviet economy before Moscow finally acknowledged defeat.

If Afghanistan is going to change, it's going to take a very, very long time. One major I talked to called it a "five-generational project."

The men in the mountains will be there five generations from now. I can't think of anyone I know who wants a Canadian presence in Afghanistan five generations from now. So how long will it take to accomplish ... what?

Christopher Alexander, Canada's ambassador in Kabul, calls Afghanistan one of the great causes of the 21st century. He says the end game will depend on the three Ps -- Pakistan, poppies and the private sector.

Can the West get Pakistan to stop playing host to Muslim extremists training young zealots for war? Can infusions of economic aid help boost the average Afghan income above $1,000 a year, which some very optimistic people contend would undermine the warlords who run the lucrative opium trade? Will international investors shrug off the dangers of Afghanistan and help rescue its stagnant economy?

Perhaps all these things will happen eventually. Then again, perhaps just getting near the poppy fields causes pipe dreams.

There are good reasons for Canada's being in Afghanistan. But as we approach the next stage of our mission there -- one that may well involve body bags -- one has to wonder whether the cost is going be worth the gain.

Is there any strategy in place that will get us where we want to go? I wish I had a good answer to that. So far I haven't seen one.

Colin Kenny is chair of the Senate committee on national security and defence. He can be reached by e-mail at kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca*


----------



## KevinB (11 Jun 2005)

[Taking DEEP breath.]

WHO the fuck does this think he is - has he been to Afghanistan outside Kabul, has he talked to anyone serving there or who has served their?  We had a very limited role in Kabul - especially in Roto2 and beyond when we lost our operating sectors.  He seems to think we should stay in camp and handout Ice Cream  :

 Kandahar on the other hand gives the mission a focus - something we as Canadian soldiers need.  If he polled the troops slated to go to Kandahar - he woudl notice that they are eagre to go and make a valuable contribution to the secuirty of Afghanistan, and the trickle down of greater stability world thus Canadian stability.


----------



## Slim (11 Jun 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> [Taking DEEP breath.]
> 
> WHO the fuck does this think he is - has he been to Afghanistan outside Kabul, has he talked to anyone serving there or who has served their?   We had a very limited role in Kabul - especially in Roto2 and beyond when we lost our operating sectors.   He seems to think we should stay in camp and handout Ice Cream   :
> 
> Kandahar on the other hand gives the mission a focus - something we as Canadian soldiers need.   If he polled the troops slated to go to Kandahar - he woudl notice that they are eagre to go and make a valuable contribution to the secuirty of Afghanistan, and the trickle down of greater stability world thus Canadian stability.



Hey Brother

Chances are that this monkey was sent with an agenda...Anyone can wear blinders if told to by higher... 

No evidence of this, just my humble opinion...

Slim


----------



## GO!!! (11 Jun 2005)

Let's face it,

Canada is not in Afghanistan to make it a better place. We are there so we dont have to contribute to the war against terror in Iraq. 

Our commitments are in high profile areas, and we place an emphasis on force protection, over any operational requirement to "make Afghanistan a better place". Because of this, you can be certain that if casualties are taken in a big way, our presence there will be "re -evaluated" and probably cancelled.

If we wanted to help the afghans, we would be patrolling their borders for them and simultaneously seeking out the enemy in concert with the US. Not attempting to rebuild one or two villages and making targets ourselves in the process.

Thoughts?


----------



## Armymedic (11 Jun 2005)

Actually, he did talk to the group I am working with...as mentioned breifly in his article as one of two groups who are actually out doing something which will actually make a difference.

And yes, its all part of his agenda...I also believe decreased SPo2 levels might have something to do with his viewpoint.

Nice to see he is back in Canada, and feeling well enough to review his aides writing before putting his name on it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jun 2005)

Senator Kenny said: _â ? What we saw in Kabul in terms of winning hearts and minds wasn't encouraging. We saw Canadian soldiers accelerating through the streets inside their armoured vehicles, decked out in helmets, sunglasses and scarves to protect them from the incessant dust, machine guns swivelling at the ready. ...  But the "Triple D" concept -- combining defence with diplomacy and development -- is supposed to be at the core of Canada's approach to reconstructing failed post-Cold War states, yet there appeared to be little connection between Canada's military presence in Kabul and its diplomatic presence: the Canadian Embassy. ... Kandahar will present the increased likelihood of combat, and Canadian fatalities. That is inevitably what you get when you intervene anywhere the bad guys are still a force, and the Taliban is surely still a force in Afghanistan. ... There are good reasons for Canada's being in Afghanistan. But as we approach the next stage of our mission there -- one that may well involve body bags -- one has to wonder whether the cost is going be worth the gain.â ? _

Those who follow my ramblings in the Military News and Politics fora will know that I support the 3D (Diplomacy, Defence and Development) model.  But a key point, which Sen. Kenny and too many others miss is that these are three distinct and separate (albeit overlapping) Ds.

The confusion in too many minds results, in some small part, from the fact that Canadian soldiers are, very often, and when the tactical situation allows, fine diplomats and efficient and effective development aid providers, too.  I suppose almost everyone here on army.ca understand the impulses that drive Canadian soldiers to help less fortunate people and so on â â€œ when they can.

Sen. Kenny seems to have confused the real business of soldiering with the _spare time_, informal diplomacy and development which so many Canadians soldiers do so well.

Within the 3D model the first duty of the soldiers is to make things safe for diplomacy and development to get started â â€œ this requires helmets and goggles and swivelling machine guns.  In the next the block (of the Three Block War) we may find soldiers with helmets still on, protecting the development workers; in the third block we may find soldiers with helmets off, doing that good old fashioned informal, _spare time_ diplomacy/development for which Canadian soldiers are well recognized.  When we have soldiers in the third block it is almost time to bring them home â â€œ they are great grass-roots diplomats but there are so few of them that we, Canada, cannot afford to leave them too long in situations where that role is possible.

If I understand the PRT concept, it is based on the 3D model.  You, tough, well disciplined, well trained professional soldiers, should be in your element doing it â â€œ in all _three blocks_.  We must remember, however, that the 1st block is your *primary* duty and it may consume all you time and efforts.

The _three block_ and 3D concepts, as I (imperfectly) understand them, exist at all levels from strategic to sub-unit/tactical: at the strategic level we are trying to make Islam and Arabia/West Asia _safe_ for some forms of diplomacy and development because, right now, they â â€œ Islam in general, and Arabia and West Asia in particular - are providing recruiting pools and safe havens for our declared enemies.  Strategically, we are defending our homelands by finding and defeating the enemy â â€œ and make no mistake we are dealing with a real enemy â â€œ on his home ground.  At the local, tactical level you are effectuating this strategy â â€œ when you work in all three blocks of the 'war.'  Only you can do the first block and you must do most of the second, too â â€œ aided by uniformed, armed Canadian police officers, etc.  When you are in the third block you have almost finished the mission, it may be almost time to go home or, more likely, to some other place where the 1st block is dominant.

Sen. Kenny seems to think that the 3rd block where the government wants you to operate because that is where Canadians, broadly, expect to see you.  He asks, perceptively, I think, _â ?... whether the Canadian government is ready for the risks that will come with the move to Kandahar.â ?_


----------



## jmacleod (11 Jun 2005)

Edward Campbell's post should be required reading for the Minister of National Defence and senior
military people like the CDS and Members of the Defence Committee, House of Commons. As far
as we know, Kenny is a political friend to the CF, but the preception that Ottawa based media have
an "agenda" is correct. Minister Graaham is considering using CF Afganhnistan for drug interdictions -
what is the reaction to this concept on the Army.ca site, please. MacLeod


----------



## KevinB (11 Jun 2005)

Edward - excellent post -and I fully agree it should be a required read.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (11 Jun 2005)

IMHO, much of what he has to say about Kandahar and our commitment there is true.   However, his credibility is blown out of the water by:



> The main components of that are: a reconnaissance squadron supporting a nearby German Provincial Reconstruction Team; a group of 14 personnel evaluating British, American and French efforts to train the Afghan Army; and some intelligence gathering.
> 
> That isn't much for such a large commitment of money and people, especially when there is little to no interaction with the local population.



First of all, Recce Sqn is supporting KMNB, which is hardly a PRT.   There are no PRTs operating in Kabul Province at all.   This says something very dangerous to me about the Senator's visit:   he had absolutely no idea what he was looking at, despite his extensive background dealing with defence issues.   And if he thinks that there's little/no interaction with Afghans by the Sqn, he again shows his stupidity (yes, I'm using that word deliberately).   Senator Kenny has a decent record of supporting the CF - sometimes against his own party, but is off the mark here.

Drugs.   We don't want to get into this.   The Afghan drug program is led by the UK, who are taking a very sensible approach.   Unfortunately, the US was (a couple of months ago) pushing very hard for an eradication program, much like Columbia, and was willing to spend billions of dollars to do it.   Since many Afghans rely on poppy crops to make a living (probably having only a limited concept of what their harvest does to people in Western countries), there has to be an alternate provided to them.   The US approach will just p**s people off, creating more Taliban sympathizers.

Edward has very perceptively outlined the issues.   I know that Ottawa had difficulty getting the other government agencies to sign up to the PRT concept initially largely because there was concern that a PRT was "too military", largely because the military component of the PRT is there not for development reasons, but to protect those civilian agencies engaged in development/reconstruction work - in other words, Block 1 in Edward's description.   I believe that the Senator's confusion (being charitable) is the direct result of the false reality the Canadians have lulled themselves into over the role of the Canadian military - the happy blue "peacekeeper" that doesn't point machine guns at anyone.

Perhaps the deployment of the PRT and (more importantly) the follow-on force next year will help to alter that perception...   The public could be in for a helluva shock.

My 2 cents.

TR


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Jun 2005)

Perhaps Edward should forward his comments on further to the Senator.  If not with his permission I will certainly do so.

Teddy what is the British way of dealing with the drug problem?


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (11 Jun 2005)

Ok, this may seem wierd or like a stupid question, but I'm rather confused.
Is Canada redeploying to Kandahar this August or next August('06)??? And does anyone know what we would be doing there?


----------



## Korus (11 Jun 2005)

Here's a thread that discusses a lot of the open source info regarding Canada's future plans in Afghanistan:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23553.0.html

You should be able to find the answer to your question there..


----------



## Trinity (11 Jun 2005)

Whiskey_Dan said:
			
		

> Ok, this may seem wierd or like a stupid question, but I'm rather confused.
> Is Canada redeploying to Kandahar this August or next August('06)??? And does anyone know what we would be doing there?



Answering that would violate Opsec...  lets just smile and nod on that point


----------



## Armymedic (11 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Answering that would violate Opsec...   lets just smile and nod on that point



Not it won't as its all in open source...

The initial troops working the PRT will be in place this Aug. As for what it will be doing, I am no expert on, nor quite up on thier mission. But more info can be found here:

http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/menu-en.asp


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (11 Jun 2005)

Thanks for clearing things up, I've been wondering for so long cause of all these damned news reports. I don't know which one to trust anymore.
Knew I could get way more reliable info right here.
Cheers,
Dan


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jun 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> Perhaps Edward should forward his comments on further to the Senator.  If not with his permission I will certainly do so.
> 
> Teddy what is the British way of dealing with the drug problem?



I am willing, but I think I need some more inputs.

I have attached, below, a First DRAFT â â€œ it is in PDF format.  I merged some of Teddy Ruxpin's ideas with some of what I said.  It still needs more â â€œ from you people.

Let me know if you think I have made a useful start; let me know what you want added or deleted, too.


----------



## kilekaldar (11 Jun 2005)

Mr. Campbell, 

I heartilly encourage you to send your letter to the Senator, but also respectfully suggest that you send a retort in the form of an opinion article to the media, notably the Ottawa Citizen. In the past they have published reactions and counter-arguments to their articles, hopefully they will again. It's vital that we fight miss-information in the public forum, because the image of the CF in the media is by what the military will live or die. With a government more concerned with optics over substance, we need to make sure that members of the public who actually pay attention get a realistic picture or what's going on, which I'm afraid the Senator is not supplying, either through ignorance or some private agenda.

I've already sent this short letter to the paper, hopefully it's vague enough not to violate Opsec, but get the point accross(I'm not entirely clear on what I can say as a serving member)

Dear Ottawa Citizen,
In response to Senator Colin Kenny's article in Friday's June 10th the Ottawa Citizen, I would like to express my disappointment in his attitude towards the challenges ahead in Afghanistan, and the general tone of the last part of the article being 'this is going to be hard, why try?'. In response I'd like to point out one of the lessons I've learned so far in my short time in the military.
Nothing worthwhile is ever easy, quick, or guaranteed of success. Simply because something appears time consuming and difficult is no reason to give up and go home. 
Past the political posturing, the bottom line is that the Afghani people need help to reestablish security, and from that will flow peace and property. I firmly believe that this deserves some risk, some effort on our part. No doubt there is a continual learning process involved and changes to be made in the way we approach the challenge, but perseverance, not defeatism will be key.

Thank you.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (11 Jun 2005)

A couple of quick points from me:

1.  The US counterdrug program was not off the ground when I was there.  Ms Rice was pushing hard for the eradication program and the US had assigned funds, but (as far as I know) nothing had really been done.  Eradication in a US context would have meant direct action against the poppy growers and a concerted effort against the distribution network.

2.  I am not an expert on what the UK was doing, although I worked very closely with the UK officer responsible for some CD work in Kabul.  The UK program was civilian and was aimed at shifting the economic base away from opium towards other crops.  In addition, they also managed programs aimed at strengthing Afghan CD assets, training police, drug detection (including dogs), customs improvements, instruction on search and seizure techniques, etc..  There were also some things I won't get into here.  Suffice it to say that you did not see heliborne British soldiers burning poppy fields.

3.  I have no comment on which approach would have been more successful, aside from a gut feel as I stated before.  One of the problems is that those involved in distribution are often community leaders, making prosecution of a successful campaign quite difficult.

Edward:  the letter's excellent.  A couple of suggestions.  First, a short letter is more likely to get published.  Second, I wouldn't get too far into comparing the UK and US approaches to CD issues, given that the above represents virtually my entire knowledge on this subject (I was concerned with other things while deployed).  If you like I can ask my UK buddy (currently at Indian staff college) for more detail...

Cheers,

Teddy


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Jun 2005)

This is good.  Lets not delay too long in sending the senator your letter.  I agree that a shorter letter would be best for the paper but I see know reason why you can't go on longer in a personal email to the senator.  It may get answered quicker if you also include in the subject line something like "Concerned Soldier".


----------



## jmacleod (12 Jun 2005)

We will send a letter to Senator Colin Kenny, Senate of Canada, Defence and Security Committee
whom we know from his perspective on Canadian airports in the National Airport System. I will
point out to him however that I do not know enough about Canadian Army operations in
Afghanistan to submit an educated point of view, but will ask that he and his Committee pay
particular attention to letters from those who contribute to this site - Senator Kenny is a very
thoughtful member of our Government - I would say, without hesitation, that he will listen
carefully to ca. Forums members and contributors,points of view. MacLeod


----------



## Canadian Journo (12 Jun 2005)

I'm a Canadian journalist with CTV who has just joined this list. Have been "embedded" with Canadians in Kandahar in 2002 and in Kabul during Rotos 0,1 and 2. 

Would guess my cumulative time in Afghanistan is coming up on two rotos, but in fairness I don't have to spend six months at a stretch. 

Like many Canadians, I didn't know much about the military until I started covering them post 9/11. 

Most of the time now, however, I can read someone's rank correctly from their uniform and I even understand a good bit of your lingo. 

I've almost always been very impressed with the professionalism of the troops I've been with and their willingness to speak openly and effectively with me about themselves and their mission. 

Think many of you are right to point out that this PRT mission in Kandahar is bound to be quite different than what Canadian soldiers have faced in Kabul. Without being melodramatic, I agree with the posts that suggest it has the potential to be more dangerous. That said, it may also be very necessary and important work.

Am making plans to be on the scene again when Canadian soldiers arrive in Kandahar, but like some of you am having trouble figuring out exactly when and where I need to be. DND Public Affairs doesn't seem to have any specifics to share at this point. That may be just because plans are still being finalized.

In any event, Americans have said I can embed with them in Kandahar, but they want to know with what unit and where.  I understand Canadians may be taking over duties from a particular American unit, but don't know which one or where they will be staying, though I saw a mention on this thread about a camp 30 km from the main American air base, possibly in Kandahar City?

Appreciate there are op/sec issues here, but was hoping someone could put me in the picture or direct me to the Canadian CO for this deployment from whom I could get the info directly.

Don't wish to get anyone in trouble here, not asking for top secret dope, but would appreciate some basic info to help me make logistical plan for myself to be in the right place at the right time in August.

Those with any suggestions on who to contact or info they could supply, can post it here or send it directly to my corporate e-mail at mmcclure@ctv.ca. 

Thanks in advance, and I hope I didn't break any rules in my first post. Promise in future ones, I will have more to contribute to the discussion.

Cheers,

Matt McClure
South Asia Correspondent
CTV News


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jun 2005)

For a number of reasons I, personally, am reluctant to send a letter to the press - but others, who wish to, may feel free to use whatever I have done.

I have attached a second DRAFT, below.

I agree that a press piece needs to go quickly, while the issue is still reasonably fresh in the public's mind.

I think we have more time, however, to develop a good DRAFT of a letter to Kenny.  The Senate Committee is working right now; Sen. Kenny will have little time to review and reflect upon incoming advice.  There is a big Town Hall Meeting â â€œ open to everyone â â€œ on Monday, 13 Jun 05 at 1900 Hrs. See: http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_SenNotice.asp?Language=E&meeting_id=6632&Parl=38&Ses=1&comm_id=76 I think that wraps up the Committee's work until the fall.  Sen. Kenny will have time to consider public inputs between now and then.

Kenny has influence and a brain, too; he is, I believe, open to advice and we should proffer it if we are convinced we have something usefulto say.  I behoves us to take whatever time we need to get it right.

My thoughts; but, whatever I have done can only get better if it reflects your thoughts, too.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (12 Jun 2005)

Canadian Journo said:
			
		

> Those with any suggestions on who to contact or info they could supply, can post it here or send it directly to my corporate e-mail at mmcclure@ctv.ca.



Matt:  I will see (tomorrow) if I can have someone contact you directly at your corporate address.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Jun 2005)

And from the staff, welcome to army.ca, Mr. McClure.
I'm sure you will find some fascinating reading here, just a warning that a lot of military personall are a little"gun shy" about the press.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Jun 2005)

Mr. Campbell if your shyness extends to the sen. I would be more then happy to send any final document off on the soldiers behalf.


----------



## KevinB (12 Jun 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> Mr. Campbell if your shyness extends to the sen. I would be more then happy to send any final document off on the soldiers behave.



Soldier's Behalf  

 soldiers behave is highly unlikely


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Jun 2005)

Ah suck it.  Shouldn't you be firing off gas grenades in the mess hall or something.


----------



## KevinB (12 Jun 2005)

I've decided Nico 9 banger or Deftech25 in the officers mess should be my next "CQB gone wrong" event  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jun 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> Mr. Campbell if your shyness extends to the sen. I would be more then happy to send any final document off on the soldiers behalf.



I would be pleased to send a letter to Sen. Kenny, signed by me but, representing more than just my opinion - I have been retired too long to have useful military opinions and my Afghanistan experience is limited to briefing some would-be public servants in London.

My 'shyness' is double edged:

"¢	I am not sure my BoD would like to see my name in print in other than professional journals related to our business.  They, members of the Board, are supporters of the military - many, especially from our Executive Committee, are active supporters of one or both of my two regimental associations and I use our organization's resources - time, computers, printing budget, etc for regimental business.  That being said, I am paid to do something which is not, in the main, related to defence; and

"¢	I am not a great, personal, fan of our media - which I think I have made clear in these fora.

If someone wants to use my words in their own submission to any media then feel free: no pride of authorship here.

If I am going to write to Kenny I need a bit more from some of you, I think.  Am I right with my PRT ââ€°Ë† a 3D operation?  Is my _Three Block War_ explanation right?  As I said, I believe he will be pleased to receive critical but useful comment - I think useful means something which broadens his understanding.  My take was that he did not grasp all the complexities of 3D for the military in the _Three Block_ Afghanistan situation.  If I'm right then I need to make sure that what I tell him, on our behalf, is right, and I need you fellows to help me with that.

I have posted a sentry at the officers' mess to watch for Kevin's grenades.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (12 Jun 2005)

A few points

1st - about the contractors at the main base in Kabul - Camp Julienne referenced by Gen Hillier

"I am a little concerned about the ratio of the number of people required to support versus the number of people who operate ... we have to be more ruthless ... if we put 200 men and women in uniform, having another 500-plus contractors to support that in-theatre is something that draws my attention right away."

Its likely quoted out of context but should prime all to the idea that if he`s against real levels of support - maybe he`s against real levels of operational activity - Kandahar or thar or anywhar. We should not think the words he says are solely his words.

2nd - 

Kenny's words may be part of a communications plan - to show us they are thinking about how things should be - fair enough - the Cdn tax payer should be as asking - WHEN and HOW MUCH? Its been 6 months since Gen Hillier took over - the fighthing we took part in from July 1943 - May 1945 was just under 24 months - so that leaves 18 months to do something that shows change - maybe he'll change some of us out of jobs! But the idea is change comes very slow until the Caucus says - MY VOTERS WANT THIS! And I don`t think they are saying that - they are saying - Stephen Harper is Scary.... so all that to suggest is there is no government focus on what we may do over in Afghanistan. The deployments seem to help keep or maintain a fighting focus for the deployed troops and the many spin-offs that that brings back to the Army and any forces committed with them from Canada but if we seek a higher aim than that - I doubt you`ll find one because we are pretty slim on the ground with MONEY and  RESOURCES. 

3rd - 

Kenny can only do as much as they let him - he can be a honest voice but go back to the last three words of the lines above in point 2.

Just my 3 cents - In summary - ask yourselves what enhancement to our fighting capability is this bringing us? If it doesn't ring a bell then maybe its not there. For the troops on the ground I think it is - for the rest of the straphangers - they are just saying words.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jun 2005)

Here is a bit more of, well not quite the same, from today's _National Post_:

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=8c1444e6-f74f-472a-bea9-98fa6edaf22c


> Canada's perilous road to Kandahar
> Camp Julien move will shift focus from relative safety of Kabul
> 
> Matthew Fisher
> ...


----------



## Slim (13 Jun 2005)

> Over the next 18 months another 3,000 Canadian troops are set to flow through Afghanistan. There will once again be a flurry of interest as they take up their duties and then, almost inevitably, silence again until one of them dies.
> 
> Difficult days lie ahead. Canadians should pay more attention.



At which time the Canadian press will start wailing about how we shouldn't be there...And every stupid fat little jerk with an opinion on a Toronto sidewalk will be interviewed about how the military shouldn't be there...Then the govt. will get in on the act. The troopies will be brought home and we will have accomplished nothing what-so-ever! All because of our spineless public and self serving media, who never let the truth get in the way of a good story!

F***!

Slim (who is rather fed up today...Does it show?!)


----------



## Armymedic (13 Jun 2005)

Ah, but do not dispair Slim...by moving to Kandahar and relieving the area from the US, we shall help the war on terror by allowing more US forces to "secure" Iraq...which is where we'll be in 5 yrs from now anyway.


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (17 Jun 2005)

Will the PRT in Kandahar also be running under Op Athena? Or is there going to be a different Op name for this one?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (17 Jun 2005)

Op ARCHER.


----------



## KevinB (17 Jun 2005)

Where'd they get the idea the Vandoo's are going in in early '06  :


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (17 Jun 2005)

I should have scrolled up and read the article.  It might come as news to SQFT!   :


----------



## jmacleod (18 Jun 2005)

In general, Canadian media is no friend to the Canadian Forces. Having said that, the US publication
which we have been getting for decades, is the Armed Forces Journal. Founded in 1863, it was
formerly known as the "Infantry Journal" and the most comprehensive source of military information
in the US. Currently  a new book "Not A Good Day To Die" by US Army Times correspondent Sean
Naylor is the "untold story of Operation Anaconda" - Canadian Army in Afghanistan participated in
Operation Anaconda - any comments on this operation from fellow readers? - and if you are looking
for the Armed Forces Journal on the newstands, to my knowledge it is not sold through retail outlets.
MacLeod


----------



## Michael Shannon (18 Jun 2005)

I think the Senator has a duty to ask if Canadian citizens are getting bang for their defence buck.  The military doesn't exist for the enjoyment, self esteem or fulfillment of it's members. It exists to complete it's missions as effectively and economically as possible. If it takes a Senator to ask questions about how scarce resources are being employed then that's regrettable but necessary. 

     Current force protection concerns do limit contact (both good and bad) with the locals. This combined with very limited language skills and historically, relatively short tours of duty may lead to the conclusion that it is unlikely that a "hearts and minds" campaign can work. 

    In Kabul ISAF's real task was to protect the transitional government from dissident elements of the Northern Alliance. Now it's time to see if the TTPs that seemed to work in the relatively permissive environment of Kabul can work among the Pashtuns around Kandahar. There are news reports that Arabs are moving in Afghanistan to use tactics that have been effective in Iraq against the western forces. 

    I would expect the PRT to be in contact shortly after arrival. The wisdom of basing the reconstruction efforts on civilians will be seen if stick to it after an incident.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Jun 2005)

Canadian Journo said:
			
		

> I'm a Canadian journalist with CTV who has just joined this list. Have been "embedded" with Canadians in Kandahar in 2002 and in Kabul during Rotos 0,1 and 2.
> 
> Don't wish to get anyone in trouble here, not asking for top secret dope, but would appreciate some basic info to help me make logistical plan for myself to be in the right place at the right time in August.
> 
> ...



Mr McClure,

As the Chief of Staff of Joint Task Force Afghanistan, I am aware of your request to embed.  The Commander supports the idea.  Please contact me at Anderson.J2@forces.gc.ca or at Anderson.J6@forces.gc.ca and we will do what we can to facilitate your request.  

LCol DJ Anderson


----------



## Franko (20 Jun 2005)

Try to set him straight Dave........

Give him to the Dragoons   ;D

Regards

BTW....Good to see your schedule opened up so you could read some of this tripe.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (25 Jun 2005)

Franko said:
			
		

> Try to set him straight Dave........
> 
> Give him to the Dragoons     ;D
> 
> ...



No shit - busier than a raped ape!


----------



## Kunu (25 Jun 2005)

> At which time the Canadian press will start wailing about how we shouldn't be there...And every stupid fat little jerk with an opinion on a Toronto sidewalk will be interviewed about how the military shouldn't be there...Then the govt. will get in on the act. The troopies will be brought home and we will have accomplished nothing what-so-ever! All because of our spineless public and self serving media, who never let the truth get in the way of a good story!
> 
> F***!
> 
> Slim (who is rather fed up today...Does it show?!)



Bingo!  Here it begins Slim:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...54&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes



> Danger zone
> Canadian soldiers have been on duty in Afghanistan since early 2002
> 
> But their mission in the country is about to change, Thomas Walkom reports
> ...


----------



## Slim (25 Jun 2005)

Dissapointed...But not surprised in the least. :evil:


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (25 Jun 2005)

Well, just consider the source - it is the Star, after all...

CARE's opposition to PRTs is old news and their mouthpiece just parrots the same old bitterness that they expressed when the US first set up PRTs in the north.  Moreover, the "34 NGOs" quoted in the article are the usual array of notoriously anti-military establishments, including MSF.  These are the NGOs who cannot seem to distinguish between a machete-wielding Congolese "militia" and a Western army - we're all evil.

I would hardly characterize the Coalition strategy as a "flop", given last year's success of the presidential elections and the relative pacification of large parts of the country.  Again, this is political spin of the worst kind.  Afghanistan is hardly Iraq...

Finally, I can't speak to the particulars of US PRT activities, but I find it hard to believe that US military units are deliberately passing themselves off as NGOs.  Of course armies are collecting intelligence, of course they're focused on conducting operations.  But do those goals exclude being able to play a positive role in developmental activities?  I don't think so...  There are plenty of NGOs in Afghanistan aside from CARE and MSF and many of these are more than willing to take advantage of the protection and logistical support offered by Allied PRTs.

The Star can bleat on all it wants, but it won't change the reality on the ground.

My 2 cents, as usual...

Teddy


----------



## Haggis (25 Jun 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> No crap - busier than a raped ape!


Seen.

And FYI you had your share of beer at the reuinon (by proxy, of course) and you behaved quite well.

Maybe next year...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (25 Jun 2005)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Seen.
> 
> And FYI you had your share of beer at the reuinon (by proxy, of course) and you behaved quite well.



That's not like me at all...


----------



## Franko (26 Jun 2005)

Tell me about it    ;D

Regards


----------



## TCBF (26 Jun 2005)

Kandahar 2002,

As our Coyote was moving through the 'Rose Garden', my gunner and I see this guy in civ clo - no big deal - but unlike all of the 'operators' of various countries who walked around in a state of casual armament, this guy was walking clean, wearing tan trousers and a fire engine red shirt.  Also, he did not appear to be quite as fit, frankly.

We shrugged, and drove the trail to our hull down at the 'Gate OP'.  I dismount and see this fellow walking the trail towards us.  He sees me looking, then turns left and starts walking towards the wire, and whatever the Russians left in the ground on the other side of it.

"Can I help you?"  I asked.  "I was just walking towards my tent."  he said, pointing to the wire. 

"Ah, no", I said,  "Nasty things out there, lets find your tent."  That's how I met Matthew Fisher.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 Jun 2005)

Are you serious.


----------

