# NATO to send up to 6,000 troops, including Canadians, to southern Afghanistan & Layton wants to stop our deployment



## Chimo (8 Dec 2005)

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - NATO foreign ministers approved plans Thursday to send up to 6,000 troops into southern Afghanistan, a major expansion of the alliance's security mission in some of the most dangerous parts of the country. 

The deployment next year of mostly European and Canadian troops will free U.S. forces to focus on counter-insurgency operations against Taliban and al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan's volatile south and east. 

"We have today agreed to move NATO's support for peace and security in Afghanistan to a new level," the ministers said in a statement. 

NATO's expansion should allow the United States to scale back its 18,000-member military presence almost five years after it invaded the country following the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. The Pentagon, however, has yet to say how many troops it will withdraw. 


Full story on theCBC website: http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/051208/w120832.html

Although this isn't news to many of us. I think the freeing up of US Soldiers to continue the fight in Iraq while NATO shares more of the responsibility for the GWOT shows a postive reaction, particularly from the Europeans.


----------



## McG (8 Dec 2005)

Any dates when TF AGIES will move from OEF to ISAF?


----------



## ImanIdiot (8 Dec 2005)

Hmm....I wonder if the existing Canadian TF will take care of this, or if they will deploy the stand by TF? I sure hope so! I hope to be on TF 2-07 next year with 3PPCLI.

Anybody have any thoughts on this?


----------



## McG (8 Dec 2005)

The Op ARCHER forces will transition from OEF under the US to ISAF under NATO.


----------



## ImanIdiot (8 Dec 2005)

Damn!  :'(


----------



## Armymedic (8 Dec 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> Any dates when TF AGIES will move from OEF to ISAF?



The info I recieved while in Kabul was the goal of having cbt forces out of OEF by Aug of 06, and all US Forces (including trainers) out in 08.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> The Op ARCHER forces will transition from OEF under the US to ISAF under NATO.



And correct me if I am wrong, but as soon as the NATO TF comd takes over from US comd, forces under that command become ISAF vs OEF.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Dec 2005)

Not sure about the standby taskforce but the surge force has pretty much been expended.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (8 Dec 2005)

> And correct me if I am wrong, but as soon as the NATO TF comd takes over from US comd, forces under that command become ISAF vs OEF.



That's right.  ARCHER is OEF at the moment (as you know) but the plan is to shift in the August timeframe.  Personally, I'm not holding my breath waiting for NATO to take over Kandahar province.  IIRC, there were major delays moving into Herat as the various individual countries fought it out - and France and Germany are none too eager to take over a combat role (which it assuredly will be) in the Southern Provinces...  IMHO, the distinction between ISAF and OEF will become increasingly blurred as time wears on.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2005)

So let me get this straight - we were part of OEF for Apollo, went to ISAF for Athena, now for Archer we are back to OIF but we'll soon be transitioning back to ISAF due to the fact that the Americans are pulling out and folding OEF?

Isn't it still bloody hot to the south?  Is it wise for the Americans to pull out?


----------



## McG (8 Dec 2005)

OEF is not foldingup & going home.  It would be more accurate to say it is reducing its AOR, and ISAF will fill the void.


----------



## Acorn (8 Dec 2005)

ISAF is supposed to expand (ISAF III-IV) to include the South, transitioning from OEF to ISAF sometine in '06. The Europeans are getting a bit wobbly about the expansion as the South and East involve actual COIN ops, as opposed to more benign stab ops. 

Apollo was in K'har under the US. Athena was(is) in Kabul under ISAF. Archer is back in K'har under OEF. The US, I think, wants to hand A'ghan over so they can concentrate on OIF.


----------



## career_radio-checker (9 Dec 2005)

No more Canadian troops to Afghanistan, Layton says

from: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/08/layton-troops051208.html

Last Updated Thu, 08 Dec 2005 23:27:15 EST 
CBC News
NDP Leader Jack Layton called for an immediate halt to sending more Canadian troops to Afghanistan, warning that Canada must not "drift into a war blindly." 

"We appear to be drifting from our original mission there â â€œ which was to provide security in the capital region â â€œ and into a combat role side-by-side with American troops," Layton said in a statement. 

Layton's announcement follows NATO's approval of a plan to send up to 6,000 troops into southern Afghanistan in a major expansion of their mission. 

"We must not drift into a war blindly or secretly, on the say-so of one man â â€œ Mr. Martin." 

"Canadians need to have a debate on whether they want Canadian service personnel to become deeply involved in an initiative that's pressed forward by (U.S. President) George Bush," said Layton at a campaign stop in St. John's, N.L. 

As many as 1,250 Canadian soldiers will be serving in Afghanistan by February 2006. Troops are expected to take part in combat patrols in the mountainous country surrounding Kandahar. Defence Minister Bill Graham has been warning the public for months to expect casualties. 

"We believe the prime minister owes Canadians an explanation of the goals of this mission, of the commitments we would be making and of what the withdrawal plan there would be and then there should be a discussion in Parliament," Layton said.  

Shhhh! What was that?!!!... for a minute there I thought I heard someone giving a rats rectum.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Dec 2005)

Vote in the NDP and we'll all be out of jobs


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Dec 2005)

Currently, AFG is split up into four regional commands (RC's), two are ISAF ( RC(W) and RC(N) ) while two are OEF/CFC-A (RC(S) and RC(E))  The Canadians will command RC(S), still under Command of LG Eikenberry (CG CFC-A) and MG Kamiya, CG CJTF-76 (under whom Comd RC(S) will command).  Our troops will only become ISAF when the US (CFC-A) relinquishes command of RC(S) to ISAF.  Those dates are not firm yet....and the US statement about having _most_ of its 18,000 troops currently in AFG leave by 08 is still just a plan from what I hear.  I suspect, like many things in life, these dates will slide to the right.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (9 Dec 2005)

*Halt troop deployment to Afghanistan Layton*
http://www.herald.ns.ca/Search/470154.html



> ST. JOHN'S, N.L. â â€ On what was supposed to be a day dedicated to seniors issues, Jack Layton trumped his own feel-good $1.5-billion seniors policy by calling for a halt to Canadian troop deployment in war-torn Afghanistan.
> 
> The wounding of three special forces soldiers in a battle near Kandahar this week and the more aggressive posture of Canadian troops as they prepare to return to the region en masse highlights a delicate legal point.
> 
> ...



Doesnt want us to drift into a war? what does he think has been going on there the last few years? handing out flowers? I suppose the invasion we helped with, particularly 3ppcli, was just roughhousing? Or is he even aware that happened?
"no formal declaration of war"
What are we supposed to declare war on? A bunch of guys hiding in the mountains building IEDs ? 

Another reason why I hate the NDP. This guy is a moron and ive never liked him.


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (9 Dec 2005)

was this in a news paper? ???


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (9 Dec 2005)

yes, I read it this morning and almost lost my mind.

Its on the inside of the first or second page.


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (11 Dec 2005)

Mack674 said:
			
		

> Doesnt want us to drift into a war? what does he think has been going on there the last few years? handing out flowers? I suppose the invasion we helped with, particularly 3ppcli, was just roughhousing? Or is he even aware that happened?
> "no formal declaration of war"
> What are we supposed to declare war on? A bunch of guys hiding in the mountains building IEDs ?
> 
> Another reason why I hate the NDP. This guy is a moron and ive never liked him.



IMO, Obviously Mr. Layton (NDP), though calling for change and a left wingist who is suppose to embrace change, is stuck so woefully in the past that he has no clue what we are fighting for today.  War has changed, and Layton is stuck in the Cold War era of war declarations. We're fighting an (unknown) enemy who is quick, agile, and deadly. Why don't he concentrate more on getting our fighting men the equipment they need to get the job done? As for us relocating to Khandahar, Kabul is relatively peaceful and secure, our mission's goal was to spread the influence of the elected Afghan government was it not? Does he not think the rest of the country deserve the same peace as Kabul?
Just my two cents.

Dan


----------



## midgetcop (13 Dec 2005)

Meh. I wouldn't expect the NDP to take any other position. 

He's simply paying lip-service to their fan base.


----------



## S McKee (13 Dec 2005)

If it doesn't have anything to do with windmills, whales or hospital waiting times "Smiling Jack" doesn't want anything to do with it. The military "That's so un-Canadian." Do the NDP even have a defence platform? Check-out their web-site, I found nothing. I guess the fact the rest of the world is engaged in a global war on terror doesn't figure in Layton's plans of a Windmill in every back-yard policy. When is this guy going to pull his head out of his ass?


----------



## pbi (18 Dec 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> If it doesn't have anything to do with windmills, whales or hospital waiting times "Smiling Jack" doesn't want anything to do with it. The military "That's so un-Canadian." Do the NDP even have a defence platform? Check-out their web-site, I found nothing. I guess the fact the rest of the world is engaged in a global war on terror doesn't figure in Layton's plans of a Windmill in every back-yard policy. When is this guy going to pull his head out of his ***?



Agreed. Jack and the gang are cunningly (or stupidly...) avoiding the fact that this is one of the best-publicized  deployments we have ever had. The Govt and the CDS have made no secret of the fact that this would be dangerous. Jack is pandering to the anti-US and anti-military segments of his constituency: both ancient and honourable parts of the left wing crowd in this country. 

Cheers.


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (21 Dec 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> both ancient and honourable parts of the left wing crowd in this country.



Canada should lean more towards the right side, if we never want to open our selves up for invasion, or annexation


----------



## Goldsmith (21 Dec 2005)

> drifting from our original mission there â â€œ which was to provide security in the capital region â â€œ and into a combat role



I can't stand that half-hearted commitment so many of the smaller contributers in allied missions show, if anything we need to avoid drifting into that level of commitment. Actions like the Medak Pocket have shown that Canada won't back down from their mission once we sign on. That attitude of withdrawl as soon as casualties start or stepping aside when the mission calls for force just pisses me off. Layton is just playing off the crackpots on the left who think Afghanistan is a US imperial adventure. Its so cliche and blindly patriotic to say "remember sept.11" but its called for here, not to mention the oppression of the Taliban. Afghanistan was the right thing to do anyway you cut it.


----------



## Kal (21 Dec 2005)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> "We appear to be drifting from our original mission there â â€œ which was to provide security in the capital region â â€œ and into a combat role side-by-side with American troops," Layton said in a statement.



   The original mission?  Was not the 'original mission' in 2002, in Southern Afghanistan, conducting combat operations out of Kandahar?  Then we "drifted" to conducting a security role in the capital region.  Are we not just getting back on track with the original mission?


----------



## Bartok5 (21 Dec 2005)

Kal said:
			
		

> The original mission?   Was not the 'original mission' in 2002, in Southern Afghanistan, conducting combat operations out of Kandahar?   Then we "drifted" to conducting a security role in the capital region.   Are we not just getting back on track with the original mission?



Yes.  Yes, it was.  But that 2002 mission was the "red-headed step-child" of both the Canadian government and the Canadian Army.  It was a "fire and forget" one-time deployment based on a knee-jerk political reaction that dictated Canada must "be seen to be doing something" in response to 9/11.  As that mission developed, it became very evident that there was no intention of us signing on for the long-haul in terms of Afghan-based combat operations.  Yes, the Army was operationally stretched at the time.  But by the same token, there was nothing more pressing on the books and 3 RCR were ramped up and ready to replace 3 PPCLI in K'har to continue combat operations in July 02.  Yet our government pulled out citing "operational pressures", only to return the next year with a 2000-plus commitment to the ISAF "Peace Support" role.  Clearly, the government of the day was not "comfortable" with the notion of our troops actually prosecuting the "war on terror".  Far better that we wait for a chance to perpetuate the operationally irrelevant (but domestically acceptable) "Canadian Peacekeeper" image, even if the latter had to occur on the backs of those doing the actual "heavy lifting" in the Afghan campaign...  

At the end of the day?  3 PPCLI's Op APOLLO deployment was a purely political and very short-lived gesture.  To its detriment, even the Army (in both the widest and most senior sense) was not interested in what 3 PPCLI had to say about its experience-based war-fighting.  Why?  Because at that point the senior leadership and the Army at large still viewed what 3 VP had done as a "one-of" anomally not to be repeated.  As a result, our post-op reports were largely ignored and the specific "lessons learned" were glossed over and quickly relegated to the "so what?" file.   

I honestly smile (however ruefully) every time I see a "new" lesson learned originating from Op ATHENA or the more recent Op ARCHER.  These lessons are given instant institutional credence with a commensurate urgency for implementation.  I smile only because 90% of those so-called "current lessons-learned" were duly documented three years ago and promptly ignored by the vast majority of the Army.  Suddenly, what was "old/irrelevant" is new and pertinent.  OK - whatever.....

It wasn't until quite recently that institutions such as the Combat Training Centre in Gagetown actually started to revisit the Op APOLLO PORs and "lessons learned" with a view to formally instituting those experience-based recommendations into their training curriculum.  The fact that they are doing so would be reassuring if it weren't for the fact that the recent reversal of attitude is based soley upon sheer necessity.  Now that the government has once again grown a set of 'nads based on perceived political opportunity in assuming a temporary international lead, we suddenly wake up as an institution and realize that we ought to be hoisting aboard previously validated operational lessons.  Great.  Except that we could have been at least 2 years ahead of where we currently are in terms of combat training evolution had "we" not written off the lessons of Op APOLLO.

But the above is just my admittedly jaded perspective.  Undoubtedly others will differ.  And that is fine - provided that at the end of the day, those lessons earned (yes, EARNED) by 3 PPCLI are put into practice for the benefit of those who will now follow on combat operations.  

Just my $.02.  As you can see, I still have a bit of an axe to grind.....     

As for the upcoming TFA deployment?  I wish them the very best of luck and operational success.  I have little doubt that the 1 PPCLI BG will enjoy a very "interesting" operational tour outside the wire IF circumstances actually allow them to aggressively prosecute the fight.  We shall see.


----------



## Kal (22 Dec 2005)

I found your response interesting to say the least, Sir. ;D  I don't find it surprising that todays government are making these decisions for political gain.  What I find frustrating though, is how many of the half-brained, ill-informed will be swayed into thinking that the operations soon to be conducted will not have any positive impact and will be lead to believe that such operations are entirely wrong without giving any objective thought to it on their part.


----------



## Slim (22 Dec 2005)

'Canada is a flourishing nation, despite its three major political parties...'

So I guess any time we work side by side with the US its automatically bad...?!

What a jackass Layton is...


----------



## Armymedic (28 Dec 2005)

Here are a series of editorial agreeing with Mr. Layton's position that there should be more open info, and public debate IRT the future deployments to Afghanistan:

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=4086aa67-8be3-45fd-ade8-a145ba045b4e

Why are we in Afghanistan?
Revised purpose of mission requires full Ottawa disclosure
  

Calgary Herald 


Tuesday, December 27, 2005


The same federal government that can stretch a debate on buying new equipment for its Armed Forces over decades is about to send 2,000 Edmonton-based soldiers to Afghanistan to engage in Canada's largest combat deployment since the Korean War, with an astonishing lack of public discussion.

Combat missions differ in kind and risk from the peacekeeping missions that have become more familiar to Canadians. Indeed, casualties in this new assignment to Kandahar have been predicted by both commanders involved, and more recently by Defence Minister Bill Graham.

Sadly, they are probably right: Unlike the police-style deployment with the International Security Assistance Force to stabilize Kabul, Canadian troops will now be seeking out Taliban gunmen in the area where the movement first took hold. It is a highly dangerous situation.

With an election in progress, one might suppose Ottawa would have been eager to explain the reason for this escalation from peacekeeping to peacemaking.

But, it seems curiously unwilling. Ministerial commentary has been infrequent, and when our sister paper the National Post requested a copy of the document describing federal intentions in Afghanistan, it was denied.

Canadians are therefore left to speculate. Certainly, it is in Canada's national interest to take its place with other western nations confronting terrorism, and to take the war on terrorism to its sources, of which Afghanistan is one. And, Canadian efforts to rebuild Afghan infrastructure damaged by decades of war have been praiseworthy; to some extent they have been facilitated by its military presence there.

Still, it is hard to forget Canada's new role in Afghanistan (as opposed to its initial six-month post-9/11 deployment) was driven principally by Ottawa's need for a good reason not to join the U.S.-led war in Iraq. If all available Canadian troops were in Kabul, there would be none to spare for Baghdad, went the reasoning; so, when the Coalition of the Willing was being assembled, the Canadian government could pose as not completely unwilling, just distracted.

This coming deployment appears to be a continuation of that policy -- but, at a time when its original purpose has disappeared. For, in the aftermath of successful elections, the U.S. is looking at winding down its military presence in Iraq, not seeking new contributors.

If Ottawa has decided to embark upon a robust engagement with worldwide terrorism in Afghanistan, many Canadians would support it.

However, all concerned deserve assurance the possible sacrifice asked of their young men and women is indeed in the service of a great enterprise, and not just to protect somebody's political skin.

With six weeks to go before the 1st Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry leaves, Canadians do not have such confidence.

Ottawa should come clean.

http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/051224/npt/051224at.htm

'Conspiracy of silence' over Afghanistan: Kandahar operations

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

Six weeks from today, the first of more than 2,000 soldiers will begin stepping off their transports and into Canada's largest combat mission since the end of the Korean War. 

Canadians have already seen action in southern Afghanistan. The commandos of the army's elite special forces unit JTF-2 have reportedly been conducting combat operations since last September, six soldiers have been wounded in Taliban attacks and one died after a road accident last month. 

And after Task Force Aegis arrives, beginning on Feb. 1, military officials have repeatedly said that Canadians should be prepared for more casualties to arise from the army's deployment to the dangerous Kandahar region. 

Yet there has been no formal motion in Parliament, little public debate and critics say no clear statement from the government about what Canada's goals are for its latest mission in Afghanistan. 

Kim Nossal, a professor of political science at Queen's University, says the Canadian public deserves more public discussion before our troops are sent into harm's way, something successive federal governments have been loath to do. 

"No one will come out and say: 'We have considered this and we are going to war,' because that's what's going on in Afghanistan," Prof. Nossal said. "There are people out there who are trying to kill Canadians." 

The government has prepared a document outlining its long-term plan for the mission in Afghanistan, a 2002 paper titled "Strategic Objectives of the Canadian Forces and the Government of Canada." 

However, when the National Post requested the document under federal access to information legislation the government refused to release anything but the cover pages, citing Cabinet confidentiality. 

"This is all about being able to sell a combat mission to a hugely skeptical Canadian public," Prof. Nossal said. "There's been a kind of conspiracy of silence among Canada's political elite to steadfastly avoid talking about why exactly we're there. 

"They simply avoid the whole topic of what our purpose is in Afghanistan." 

He said the government's secret policy statement is probably an unimpressive document because Canada's reasons for being in Afghanistan have as much to do with domestic politics as foreign affairs. 

"If it were truly honest, it would say something like: 'We've got to clean up the mess made by [former prime minister Jean] Chretien; we've got to repair our relations with the U.S. and be seen to be doing something useful', " he said. "So why not go to Afghanistan?" 

"That's not much of a reason to be sending our young men and women into harm's way." 

More than 1,500 people have been killed this year in the deadliest violence in Afghanistan since U.S.-led forces ousted the hardline Taliban from power in 2001. 

Although high-profile bombings on Canadian convoys around Kandahar have made headlines over the past few weeks, the issue has rated barely a mention during the ongoing federal election campaign. 

Two weeks ago Jack Layton, the NDP leader, questioned the decision to send more Canadian troops to Afghanistan, particularly on a much more aggressive mission than the earlier "peace support" for Kabul. 

"We appear to be drifting from our original mission there -- which was to provide security in the capital region --and into a combat role side by side with American troops," Mr. Layton observed in a statement. "We must not drift into a war blindly or secretly, on the say-so of one man ... If Paul Martin wants to involve Canada directly in a war in Afghanistan, then he must spell out what our goals are, what our commitments will be and when and how we will get out. 

"We then require a real national debate and a clear democratic decision taken by Parliament." 

Bill Graham, the Defence Minister, did not return repeated telephone calls from the Post seeking comment, but a spokeswoman said the Minister gave a speech last fall in which he warned Canadians to expect casualties during the Kandahar mission. 

There was also an evening debate in the House of Commons last month on the Afghan mission, with a handful of MPs speaking at length on the topic. But the House and the public galleries were almost empty, the debate drew no interest from the media and no motion was voted upon. 

Meanwhile, the two nations that are supposed to be joining the Canadian-led brigade in Kandahar have been having some very public second thoughts. 

Newspaper reports last week suggested that the British government was reconsidering its commitment of as many as 5,000 troops. A decision on the matter was expected months ago and the delay is reportedly causing frustration among British army commanders. 

One officer told The Scotsman newspaper that if the British force is not a sizeable one, the entire mission to Afghanistan should be reconsidered. 

"There are people asking if we should be doing it at all," the unnamed officer said. "There has been discussion about a rethink, maybe not doing it at all, though that does not seem very likely." 

Britain currently has about 900 troops in Afghanistan, mainly in Kabul and the northern provinces. 

The other major contributor to the Canadian brigade was to have been the Dutch. However, that country's Cabinet has postponed a decision on its deployment of more than 1,000 soldiers amid concerns about security in the more dangerous southern part of the country. 

The Dutch government agreed on Thursday to send its soldiers, but opponents of the deployment could mount resistance in Parliament. 

The Dutch contribution will eventually include six F16 fighters, six Apache attack helicopters and armoured vehicles and mortars. 

It took months of wrangling to persuade other NATO members to agree to supply troops, with France and Germany in particular balking at the idea. 

NATO agreed earlier this month to boost its Kabul-based International Security Assistance Force to about 15,000 troops next year from around 9,000, with Britain due to take command and deploy troops in the south alongside Canadian and Dutch forces. 

Until NATO takes over next summer, the Canadians will be operating under U.S. command. 

The United States is anxious for the NATO-led force to take over from its Regional Command South, based at Kandahar, allowing it to withdraw up to 3,000 soldiers from Afghanistan. 

http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/051228/npt/051228c0.htm

Armed Forces should break the 'silence'

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

Re: 'Conspiracy Of Silence' Over Afghanistan, Dec. 24. 

The federal government's refusal to release a document titled "Strategic Objectives of the Canadian Forces and the Government of Canada," which purportedly outlines its long-term plan for the mission in Afghanistan, to the National Post is not in keeping with General Rick Hillier's stated intention of keeping Canadians informed. 

Prior to the mission to Afghanistan, the Chief of the Defence Staff told Canadians that Canadian troops would target "detestable murderers and scumbags abroad -- rooting out and killing an enemy that has shown no mercy for those seeking democracy." 

Gen. Hillier also said "he would continue to explain what his troops are doing -- which hasn't been peacekeeping for more than 10 years. Canadians, he said, have to wake up to the new reality," whether Canadians like it or not. 

Unfortunately, as Chris Wattie's story confirms, part of that "new reality" is that "six Canadian soldiers have been wounded in Taliban attacks and one died after a road accident last month." 

Meanwhile, many of us are still waiting to hear from whoever it was that made the policy decision that has so altered our perception of ourselves as Canadians -- from model citizens focused on issues like pluralism, democracy, the rule of law and human rights -- to an aggressor abroad. 

Keith Deriger, Gatineau, Que



If both British and Dutch Parliments are having difficulty getting behind thier respective deployments, how much support would there be here in Canada?


----------



## George Wallace (28 Dec 2005)

So I take it, from these articles, that the National Post feels that it should be running the country, not our elected officials?


----------



## 3rd Herd (29 Dec 2005)

Here's an old bit of British advice on service in Afghanistan.

When the 'arf-made recruity goes out to the East
'E acts like a babe an' 'e drinks like a beast,
An' 'e wonders because 'e is frequent deceased
Ere 'e's fit for to serve as a soldier.
      Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
      Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
      Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
         So-oldier _of_ the Queen!

Now all you recruities what's drafted to-day,
You shut up your rag-box an' 'ark to my lay,
An' I'll sing you a soldier as far as I may:
A soldier what's fit for a soldier.
      Fit, fit, fit for a soldier . . .

First mind you steer clear o' the grog-sellers' huts,
For they sell you Fixed Bay'nets that rots out your guts --
Ay, drink that 'ud eat the live steel from your butts --
An' it's bad for the young British soldier.
      Bad, bad, bad for the soldier . . .

When the cholera comes -- as it will past a doubt --
Keep out of the wet and don't go on the shout,
For the sickness gets in as the liquor dies out,
A' it crumples the young British soldier.
      Crum-, crum-, crumples the soldier . . .

But the worst o' your foes is the sun over'ead:
You must wear your 'elmet for all that is said:
If 'e finds you uncovered 'e'll knock you down dead,
An' you'll die like a fool of a soldier.
      Fool, fool, fool of a soldier . . .

If you're cast for fatigue by a sergeant unkind,
Don't grouse like a woman nor crack on nor blind;
Be handy and civil, and then you will find
That it's beer for the young British soldier.
      Beer, beer, beer for the soldier . . .

Now, if you must marry, take care she is old --
A troop-sergeant's widow's the nicest I'm told,
For beauty won't help if your rations is cold,
Nor love ain't enough for a soldier.
      'Nough, 'nough, 'nough for a soldier . . .

If the wife should go wrong with a comrade, be loath
To shoot when you catch 'em -- you'll swing, on my oath! --
Make 'im take 'er and keep 'er:  that's Hell for them both,
An' you're shut o' the curse of a soldier.
      Curse, curse, curse of a soldier . . .

When first under fire an' you're wishful to duck,
Don't look nor take 'eed at the man that is struck,
Be thankful you're livin', and trust to your luck
And march to your front like a soldier.
      Front, front, front like a soldier . . .

When 'arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch,
Don't call your Martini a cross-eyed old bitch;
She's human as you are -- you treat her as sich,
An' she'll fight for the young British soldier.
      Fight, fight, fight for the soldier . . .

When shakin' their bustles like ladies so fine,
The guns o' the enemy wheel into line,
Shoot low at the limbers an' don't mind the shine,
For noise never startles the soldier.
      Start-, start-, startles the soldier . . .

If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
      Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
      Go, go, go like a soldier,
      Go, go, go like a soldier,
      Go, go, go like a soldier,
         So-oldier _of_ the Queen!

 	-- Rudyard Kipling


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Jan 2006)

From CBC :http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/060104/w010488.html

Suspected Taliban kill Afghan teacher in front of family; school taught girls 
14:57:34 EST Jan 4, 2006 
NOOR KHAN



KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) - Militants broke into the home of a headmaster of a school in central Afghanistan that educates girls and beheaded him while forcing his family to watch, the latest in a spate of alleged Taliban attacks that have forced many schools to close, officials said Wednesday. 

The insurgents claim that educating girls is against Islam and they even oppose government-funded schools for boys because the schools teach subjects besides religion. 

Four armed men stabbed Malim Abdul Habib, 45, eight times before decapitating him in the courtyard of his home in the town of Qalat late Tuesday, said Ali Khail, a provincial government spokesman, and Dr. Esanullah, a cousin of the victim. 

The insurgents killed him after he refused to go with them to meet their commander, Esanullah said. 

The assailants made Habib's wife and four sons and four daughters, aged between two and 22, watch the killing but did not hurt them physically, Khail said. 

The attackers then fled and the wife called the police. Investigators were questioning three people who were guests in the victim's home. 

The government condemned the killing. Masood Khalili, the Afghan ambassador to Turkey, where President Hamid Karzai was visiting, said it was a "disgusting action by the enemies of Afghanistan." 

Habib was the headmaster and a teacher at Shaikh Mathi Baba high school, which is attended by some 1,300 boys and girls. 

Zabul province's education director, Nabi Khushal, blamed the Taliban for the killing, saying the insurgents have occasionally put up posters around Qalat demanding girls' schools be closed and threatening to kill teachers. 

"Only the Taliban are against girls being educated," he said. "The Taliban often attack our teachers and beat them. But this is the first time one has been killed in this province." 

Esanullah said Habib restarted his more then 20-year teaching career two years ago after the Taliban threatened him while he was working for an aid group helping the disabled. Since then, the Taliban told him twice to stop teaching, he said. 

Habib's funeral was held Wednesday and was attended by hundreds of students and teachers. 

Taliban spokesmen and commanders in the region, one of the most volatile in Afghanistan, could not immediately be reached for comment. 

Dozens of schools have been attacked and burned since U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban in 2001. Most of the attacks have come at night and not caused fatalities, but in October gunmen shot dead another headmaster in front of his students at a boys school in southern Kandahar province, the former stronghold of the Taliban regime. 

Before the Taliban was forced from power, they prohibited girls from attending school and forced boys to study only Islam as part of its drive to establish what it considered a "pure" Islamic state. 


Cleric Sayed Omer Munib, a member of the nation's top Islamic council, said there was no justification in Islam to prevent girls from studying. 

"Nowhere in the Qur'an does it say that girls do not have the right to education," he said. "It says that people should be educated. This means girls too." 

Though hundreds of thousands of children have since returned to school, many have not. There are some 1.2 million primary school-aged girls alone who are not being educated, according to the United Nations. 

Khushal said 100 of the Zabul province's 170 registered schools have closed over the past two to three years because of security fears, mostly in outlying districts. Of Zabul's 35,000 students, only 2,700 are girls, he said. 

A spokesman for UNICEF, the UN's children's agency, said the attacks were "incredibly worrying." 

"Militants are clearly trying to intimidate communities and force families not to send their girls to school," said Edward Carwardine. "We hope these incidents will not deter families. . . . Fortunately, so far we have not seen a decline in girls attending." 

He said about 90 per cent of Afghan adults are believed to be in favour of girls being educated, with many of those who oppose it being in conservative rural areas where the Taliban is most powerful. 

Zabul, a remote and mountainous province populated mainly by Pashtuns and bordering Pakistan, is a hot-bed of Taliban militancy. 

© The Canadian Press, 2006


----------



## Jack O. (5 Jan 2006)

Yet another example of the "terrorists" or "insurgents" or whatever the media call them these days perverting their religion for their own petty and disgusting interests, and i think it's about time someone held a seminar on what we're actually doing in Afghanistan to educate those who are ignorant or only seek votes or popularity with other ignorant folk who scream bloody murder at the sight of guns or anything other than their fantasy world.


----------



## armyvern (5 Jan 2006)

Kal said:
			
		

> The original mission?  Was not the 'original mission' in 2002, in Southern Afghanistan, conducting combat operations out of Kandahar?  Then we "drifted" to conducting a security role in the capital region.  Are we not just getting back on track with the original mission?



Mr. Jack seems to be referring to the original mandate of Op Athena by this statement. Not the actual original-original CF mission (Op Apollo) into Afg which was indeed combat ops out of Khandahar. 

2002 is too long a time ago to remember for those who would vote for a party without a Defense platform. They don't know what we're doing there today let alone what the CF did 'way back in 02.'


----------

