# Therefore ... we should stay in Afghanistan



## DavidAkin (8 Feb 2008)

I know there's lots of existing topics on the political showdown on Afghanistan but I thought a new one on the actual wording of the motion MPs will vote on might be appropriate. Here it is, freshly tabled minutes ago in the House of Commons.  I call your attention to what appear to be two olive branches, if you will, from the Conservatives: 1. An endpoint -- 2011 2. A commitment to training. But, notably, the motion calls for the CF to remain in Kandahar, not to be rotated elsewhere in country. Here's the motion:

*Government Motion - Seeking to Continue the Mission in Afghanistan*

That, 

	whereas the House recognizes the important contribution and sacrifice of Canadian Forces and Canadian civilian personnel as part of the UN mandated, NATO-led mission deployed in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government of 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 recognises 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 province, as well as effective multi-year aid commitments with concrete objectives and assessments, and, further, to assert strong Canadian leadership to promote better coordination of the overall effort in Afghanistan by the international community, and, Afghan authorities;

.../2


- 2 -

	whereas the results of progress in Afghanistan, including Canada's military deployment, will be reviewed in 2011 (by which time the Afghanistan Compact will have concluded) 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; and 

	whereas the ultimate aim of Canadian policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure;

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 1000 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 (UAVs) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009.

Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform


----------



## COBRA-6 (8 Feb 2008)

David, thanks for posting this. 

I like the _*review*_ date of 2011 to coincide with the end of the Afghanistan Compact mandate. I emphasize the review date rather than withdrawl date because it's impossible to set a firm end date if we are to leave the Afghans in position for success. Saying "we're pulling out in 200X no matter what" is like the fire department responding to a call and saying "we're leaving in 30 minutes whether or not the fire is out"... we leave when the ANSF are ready to do the job.


----------



## Staff Weenie (8 Feb 2008)

Thank you kindly for posting that David. I always find it interesting to see how the machinations of government work. I believe those 'olive branches' are quite substantial, and significantly reduce the possible contention of the motion.  

That said, the real question, sadly enough for the people of Afghanistan, is not whether MPs will truly vote on the need for continuing the mission, and all that it entails, rather they will guide their votes based upon whether the opposition parties believe they are strong enough to win a clear majority in a spring election.

And, as noted by COBRA-6, dates are entirely irrelevant to the rate of change.

Let's hope that our politicians vote based upon what is right for Canada and Canadians, and our responsibility to help make this world a better place.


----------



## geo (8 Feb 2008)

David, I concurr!

All in favor say aye?    

AYE!


----------



## DavidAkin (8 Feb 2008)

The Afghanistan motion will be voted on at the end of March. It will be the third and final confidence vote of what will likely be at least three confidence votes in March. A budget vote will happen early in March and the Tories also have a bill on the books that makes it a "vote of confidence" if the Senate fails to pass the crime bill that has already passed the House of Commons. What does all this mean for the Afghanistan file?

First: I would say it is the consensus view of my press gallery colleagues that this motion on Afghanistan will never be voted on by this group of MPs because the governnment will fall on one of the earlier confidence motions (the Liberals want to go out on the budget; the Tories on the crime bill). Many politicians here believe they will be on the campaign trail by the end of March. That means that what you hear right now from politicians on Afghanistan are "markers" each party will use to campaign on. 

Second: If there is no election, neither the Conservatives nor Liberals necessarily want to campaign on the Afghanistan mission, although the NDP would be happy to, as their position -- everyone out now -- is, they believe, enough of a contrast to the Libs and Cons that they would attract votes from the Liberal left. 
That said, because Afghanistan is a relatively polarizing issue for most Canadians, all political parties may find it difficult to really "win" on Aghanistan. Possibly because of that, the Conservatives and Liberals may be able to come to some sense of agreement on the mission for the years leading up to 2011. In my reading of this motion, there is enough 'moderate' and flexible language for the Liberal view to be accomodated -- if, in fact, that's what the Liberals want.


----------



## helpup (8 Feb 2008)

Aye,
Like the proposal and as mentioned the review of commitment, not commit to terminate.  +1 for the Conservatives for the wording.  Now we just need to see if this will be an election issue, if it fails the vote.  If that is the case then the outcome from that election would be a firm answer from the public one way or the other.


----------



## Wootan 9 (8 Feb 2008)

The wording of the motion reflects the Manley report and makes perfect sense (at least to this former soldier).  I find it very interesting that Mr. Dion had this since his meeting with the PM and did nothing constructive.  Instead, he came out and reinforced his illogical "no combat" position.  Since then Denis Coderre has been everywhere on the tube beating the same drum.  See this clip from CTV's "The Verdict" from Wed PM. http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/sbplayer/Docs.html (You'll have to copy and paste in your browser as posting a link is beyond my technical level)

Despite the fact that (as the clip makes clear) I believe that the Liberal position is totally untenable, the Government must lay out a more comprehensive strategy for the Canadian people.  Today's motion is a start - but just a start.

The Afghan mission is far too important to be held hostage to political partisanship.  The shame is that it is now about Dion's "leadership" and Liberal caucus credibility.  This is a grave disservice to all who have served and sacrificed.

Mike


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Feb 2008)

DavidAkin said:
			
		

> ...whereas the ultimate aim of Canadian policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure;
> 
> 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:
> 
> ...



This is extremely well crafted. The Conservatives have shown considerable modification in their previous "full up" combat mission stance. It will be hard for the Liberals to convince folks that this is not a good compromise. I think that Canadians are smart enough to realize that there can't be development without security, and this motion proposes that. The Liberal position is a "stand back and watch" approach.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Feb 2008)

As to "endpoints", as far as I know declaring them while a military commitment was ongoing has not been usual Canadian practice: e.g.,

Forces with NATO in Europe (roughly forty years, never came to combat, though being able to do that was the whole point)
UNEF (Nasser booted the force out, not a choice to leave)
Cyprus
Former Yugoslavia

Others may have examples.

A guest-post at _Daimnation!_ (note the *Uppestdate*):

Those craven Liberals
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/010822.html

Regarding UNEF,
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=collections/cmdp/mainmenu/group05/unef

quite a few Canadians died (32), from a much smaller population, though over a longer period of time and not in "combat".  Just things to think about.  There was no "exit strategy" then.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Mike Baker (8 Feb 2008)

I cannot agree more. Here is an article on the topic.


----------



## RangerRay (8 Feb 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> This is extremely well crafted. The Conservatives have shown considerable modification in their previous "full up" combat mission stance. It will be hard for the Liberals to convince folks that this is not a good compromise. I think that Canadians are smart enough to realize that there can't be development without security, and this motion proposes that. The Liberal position is a "stand back and watch" approach.



It is well crafted, but how is this being reported?  If it's not reported by the MSM, then it didn't happen...people will only hear what the PPG wants them to hear, and they have virtually declared war on the PM.


----------



## PattiM (11 Feb 2008)

I believe that the motion is well written and reasonable for any reasonable party to respond to. However, we are talking Liberals under Dion.. which doesn't mean reasonable. While the motion itself will very likely not be voted on if the pin gets pulled via the two other confidence issues before the house, I do believe that Afghanistan and the future of the mission will factor into Canadians choices at the polls. 

I for one am adamant that I will not vote for a party advocating either the withdrawal of our troops or tying their hands from being able to establish and maintain security in Kandahar. I sent an email out on the weekend to the Liberals speaking to that point. The text is as follows: 



> Having just read your communication to which I am subscribed to receive via email.
> 
> I have always tended to vote Liberal and would dearly love to be able to vote Liberal in what is increasingly looking like a imminent election.
> 
> ...



I could give Dion some leeway when he first became 'leader' that he needed some time to learn the position. He's had more than enough time to figure out that when he's talking about the lives of Canadians serving this country, dates on the Calendar do not the mission drive.


----------



## Yrys (11 Feb 2008)

PattiM said:
			
		

> He's had more than enough time to figure out



Well... You're talking about Dion here... not Einstein  !


----------



## DavidAkin (12 Feb 2008)

Stephane Dion unveiled the Liberal "amendments" to the Governnment's motion on Afghanistan (previously posted here) this morning in Ottawa. I put "amendments" in quotes because the Libs kept precisely one word "That..." from the original Conservative motion. That said, Prime Minister Harper's reaction was surprisingly warm. (I've posted his rxn at my blog: http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/12/3519963.html ).

Here is the the text of the Liberal Afghanistan motion:

That all of the words after the word “That” be deleted and the following substituted therefore:


this House recognizes the important contribution and sacrifice of Canadian Forces and Canadian civilian personnel as part of the UN mandated, NATO-led mission deployed in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan;



this House believes that Canada must remain committed to the people of Afghanistan beyond February 2009;



this House takes note that in February 2002, the government took a decision to deploy 850 troops to Kandahar to join the international coalition that went to Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and that this deployment lasted for six months at which time the troops rotated out of Afghanistan and returned home;



this House takes note that in February 2003 the government took a decision that Canada would commit 2000 troops and lead for one year, starting in the summer of 2003, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul and at the end of the one-year commitment, Canada’s 2000 troop commitment was reduced to a 750-person reconnaissance unit as Canada’s NATO ally, Turkey, rotated into Kabul to replace Canada as the lead nation of the ISAF mission;



this House takes note that in August 2005, Canada assumed responsibility of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar province which included roughly 300 Canadian Forces personnel;



this House takes note that the government took a decision to commit a combat Battle Group of roughly 1200 troops to Kandahar for a period of one year, from February 2006 to February 2007;



this House takes note that in January 2006, the government participated in the London Conference on Afghanistan which resulted in the signing of the Afghanistan Compact which set out benchmarks and timelines until the end of 2010 for improving the security, the governance and the economic and social development of Afghanistan; 



this House takes note that in May 2006, the government took a decision to extend the military deployment in Kandahar for an additional two years so that the mission was then scheduled to end in February 2009; 



this House takes note that it has long been a guiding principle of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan that all three components of a comprehensive government strategy – defence, diplomacy and development – must reinforce each other and that the government must strike a balance between these components to be most effective;



this House takes note that the ultimate aim of Canadian policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure and to create the necessary space and conditions to allow the Afghans themselves to achieve a political solution to the conflict; and



this House takes note that in order to achieve that aim, it is essential to assist the people of Afghanistan to have properly trained, equipped and paid members of the four pillars of their security apparatus: the army, the police, the judicial system and the corrections system;



therefore, it is the opinion of this House that Canada should continue a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to February 1 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan, and that the military mission shall consist of:



(a)               training the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can expeditiously take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole;



(b)               providing security for reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar; and



(c)                the continuation of Canada’s responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team;



And it is the opinion of this House that this extension of Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:



(a)               NATO secures sufficient troops to rotate into Kandahar (operational no later than February 2009) to allow Canadian troops to be deployed pursuant to the mission priorities of training and reconstruction; 



(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 (UAVs) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009; and



(c)                the government of Canada immediately notify NATO that Canada will end its military presence in Kandahar as of February 1, 2011, by which point the time allotted to reach all of the benchmarks set out in the Afghanistan Compact will have expired, and as of that date, the redeployment of the Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar will start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by July 1, 2011;



And it is the opinion of this House that the government of Canada, together with our allies and the government of Afghanistan, must set firm targets and timelines for the training, equipping and paying of the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, the members of the judicial system and the members of the correctional system;



And it is the opinion of this House that Canada’s contribution to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan should:



(a)                               be revamped and increased to strike a better balance between our military efforts and our development efforts in Afghanistan; 



(b)                               focus on our traditional strengths as a nation, particularly through the development of sound judicial and correctional systems and strong political institutions on the ground in Afghanistan and the pursuit of a greater role for Canada in addressing the chronic fresh water shortages in the country;



(c)                                address the crippling issue of the narco-economy that consistently undermines progress in Afghanistan, through the pursuit of solutions that do not further alienate the goodwill of the local population; and



(d)                               be held to a greater level of accountability and scrutiny so that the Canadian people can be sure that our development contributions are being spent effectively in Afghanistan;



And it is the opinion of this House that Canada should assert a stronger and more disciplined diplomatic position regarding Afghanistan and the regional players including the naming of a special Canadian envoy to the region who could both ensure greater coherence in Canada’s diplomatic initiatives in the region and also press for greater coordination amongst our partners in the UN in the pursuit of common diplomatic goals in the region;



And it is the opinion of this House that the Government should provide the public with franker and more frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan, offering more assessments of Canada’s role and giving greater emphasis to the diplomatic and reconstruction efforts as well as those of the military and, for greater clarity, the Government should table in Parliament detailed reports on the progress of the mission in Afghanistan on a quarterly basis;



And it is the opinion of this House that the House of Commons should strike a special Parliamentary committee on Afghanistan which would meet regularly with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and National Defence and other senior officials and that the House should authorize travel by the special committee to Afghanistan and the surrounding region so that the special committee can make frequent recommendations on the conduct and progress of our efforts in Afghanistan.



And it is the opinion of this House that the special Parliamentary Committee on Afghanistan should review the use of operational and national security exceptions for the withholding of information from Parliament, the Courts and the Canadian people to ensure that Canadians are being provided with ample information on the conduct and progress of the mission; 



And it is the opinion of this House that with respect to the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities, the Government must:



(a)                                maintain the current suspension on the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities until substantive reforms of the prison system in Afghanistan are undertaken so the systemic risk of torture is eliminated;



(b)                                pursue a NATO-wide solution to the question of detainees through diplomatic efforts that are rooted in the core Canadian values of respect for human rights and the dignity of all people; and



(c)                                commit to a policy of greater transparency with respect to its policy on the taking of and transferring of detainees including a commitment to release the results of any reviews or inspections of Afghan prisons undertaken by Canadian officials; and



And it is the opinion of this House that the government must commit to improved interdepartmental coordination to achieve greater cross-government coherence and coordination of the government’s domestic management of our commitment to Afghanistan, including the creation of a full-time task force which is responsible directly to the Prime Minister to lead these efforts.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Feb 2008)

I just read this quickly.  A couple of observations:

The Libs seem to have 180'd from their _firm_ end-date of Feb 09 to a NEW _firm_ end date of 2011.  Why not make it conditions based?  EG: Stay until such time that, in our opinion, Afghans can maintain and sustain themselves (or words to that effect).
Also, there is no need for other troops to "rotate in" to "take over" our security role.  WTF does Dion think that our battlegroup is doing there?  PM Martin sent them there to do just that, and subesequent parliaments have extended this role, because, in simple terms, it wasn't done yet.

Last point: why even mention the detainee thing?   Just asking, is all.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Feb 2008)

If I were the PM I would offer a sub-amendment, as follows:

Legend: strikeout means delete and underline means insert Changes in yellow

That all of the words after the word “That” be deleted and the following substituted therefore:


this House recognizes the important contribution and sacrifice of Canadian Forces and Canadian civilian personnel as part of the UN mandated, NATO-led mission deployed in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan;



this House believes that Canada must remain committed to the people of Afghanistan beyond February 2009;



this House takes note that in February 2002, the government took a decision to deploy 850 troops to Kandahar to join the international coalition that went to Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and that this deployment lasted for six months at which time the troops rotated out of Afghanistan and returned home;



this House takes note that in February 2003 the government took a decision that Canada would commit 2000 troops and lead for one year, starting in the summer of 2003, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul and at the end of the one-year commitment, Canada’s 2000 troop commitment was reduced to a 750-person reconnaissance unit as Canada’s NATO ally, Turkey, rotated into Kabul to replace Canada as the lead nation of the ISAF mission;



this House takes note that in August 2005, Canada assumed responsibility of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar province which included roughly 300 Canadian Forces personnel;



this House takes note that the government took a decision to commit a combat Battle Group of roughly 1200 troops to Kandahar for a period of one year, from February 2006 to February 2007;



this House takes note that in January 2006, the government *Canada* participated in the London Conference on Afghanistan which resulted in the signing of the Afghanistan Compact which set out benchmarks and timelines until the end of 2010 for improving the security, the governance and the economic and social development of Afghanistan; 



this House takes note that in May 2006, the government this House took a decision to extend the military deployment in Kandahar for an additional two years so that the mission was then scheduled to end in February 2009; 



this House takes note that it has long been a guiding principle of Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan that all three components of a comprehensive government strategy – defence, diplomacy and development – must reinforce each other and that the government must strike a balance between these components to be most effective;



this House takes note that the ultimate aim of Canadian policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure and to create the necessary space and conditions to allow the Afghans themselves to achieve a political solutions to the conflict; and



this House takes note that in order to achieve that aim, it is essential to assist the people of Afghanistan to have properly trained, equipped and paid members of the four pillars of their security apparatus: the army, the police, the judicial system and the corrections system;



therefore, it is the opinion of this House that Canada should continue a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to February 1 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan, and that the military mission shall consist of:



(a)               training the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can expeditiously take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole;



(b)               providing security for reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar; and



(c)                the continuation of Canada’s responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team;



And it is the opinion of this House that this extension of Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:



(a)               NATO ISAF secures sufficient troops to rotate into join in combat operations in Kandahar (operational no later than February 2009) to allow Canadian troops to be deployed pursuant to the mission priorities of training, security and reconstruction; and



(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 (UAVs) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009; and



(c)                the government of Canada immediately notify NATO that Canada will end its military presence in Kandahar as of February 1, 2011, by which point the time allotted to reach all of the benchmarks set out in the Afghanistan Compact will have expired, and as of that date, the redeployment of the Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar will start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by July 1, 2011;



And it is the opinion of this House that the government of Canada, together with our allies and the government of Afghanistan, must set firm targets and timelines for the training, equipping and paying of the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, the members of the judicial system and the members of the correctional system;



And it is the opinion of this House that Canada’s contribution to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan should:



(a)                               be revamped and increased to strike a better balance between our military efforts and our development efforts in Afghanistan; 



(b)                               focus on our traditional strengths as a nation, particularly through the development of sound judicial and correctional systems and strong political institutions on the ground in Afghanistan and the pursuit of a greater role for Canada in addressing the chronic fresh water shortages in the country;



(c)                                address the crippling issue of the narco-economy that consistently undermines progress in Afghanistan, through the pursuit of solutions that do not further alienate the goodwill of the local population; and



(d)                               be held to a greater level of accountability and scrutiny so that the Canadian people can be sure that our development contributions are being spent effectively in Afghanistan;



And it is the opinion of this House that Canada should assert a stronger and more disciplined diplomatic position regarding Afghanistan and the regional players including the naming of a special Canadian envoy to the region who could both ensure greater coherence in Canada’s diplomatic initiatives in the region and also press for greater coordination amongst our partners in the UN in the pursuit of common diplomatic goals in the region;



And it is the opinion of this House that the Government should provide the public with franker and more frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan, offering more assessments of Canada’s role and giving greater emphasis to the diplomatic and reconstruction efforts as well as those of the military and, for greater clarity, the Government should table in Parliament detailed reports on the progress of the mission in Afghanistan on a quarterly basis;



And it is the opinion of this House that the House of Commons should strike a special Parliamentary committee on Afghanistan which would meet regularly with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and National Defence and other senior officials and that the House should authorize travel by the special committee to Afghanistan and the surrounding region so that the special committee can make frequent recommendations on the conduct and progress of our efforts in Afghanistan.



And it is the opinion of this House that the special Parliamentary Committee on Afghanistan should review the use of operational and national security exceptions for the withholding of information from Parliament, the Courts and the Canadian people to ensure that Canadians are being provided with ample information on the conduct and progress of the mission;  



And it is the opinion of this House that with respect to the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities, the Government must:



(a)                                maintain the current suspension on the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities until substantive reforms of the prison system in Afghanistan are undertaken so the systemic risk of torture is eliminated;



(b)                                pursue a NATO-wide solution to the question of detainees through diplomatic efforts that are rooted in the core Canadian values of respect for human rights and the dignity of all people; and



(c)                                commit to a policy of greater transparency with respect to its policy on the taking of and transferring of detainees including a commitment to release the results of any reviews or inspections of Afghan prisons undertaken by Canadian officials; and



And it is the opinion of this House that the government must commit to improved interdepartmental coordination to achieve greater cross-government coherence and coordination of the government’s domestic management of our commitment to Afghanistan, including the creation of a full-time task force which is responsible directly to the Prime Minister to lead these efforts.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Feb 2008)

Send that to the PMO.


----------



## CougarKing (12 Feb 2008)

Maybe this should be moved to the "Canadian Politics" section of the forum. Your changes are on the right track, as usual, Mr. Campbell, although I doubt Mr.Dion will actually want to add them, especially with his "reconstruction" focus.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Feb 2008)

Compromise involves a little give and a little take. M. Dion has _given_ quite a bit (with his amendment); maybe he should _take_ some (constructive criticism), too.

The aim, for both the Liberals (who sent us to Kandahar in the first place) and the Conservatives (who were foolish enough to open the "end of mission" can of worms), ought to be to provide a sensible, _national_, political rationale for our remaining in Afghanistan, or not.


----------



## JesseWZ (12 Feb 2008)

I am actually not too terribly unhappy with this amendment, and I expect it will be further amended. There are some things that make me a tad uncomfortable (Edward got them all I think) but I could live with it.  I echo what the Prime Minister said that I read in David's blog that it seems that progress has been made here.


----------



## GAP (12 Feb 2008)

This is a compromise concocted by people who will never have to live with the consequences of their actions/words.....it's shyte !!


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Feb 2008)

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, indicates that the compromise might not be there after all – which is why I wanted the word “security” added in my proposed amendment to the Liberal amendment (posted a couple of days ago, in this thread):

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080214.welectionafghan14/BNStory/Front


> Liberals back away from compromise on troops
> *Party sends mixed signals a day after a deal with the Conservatives on the future role of the Kandahar battle group seemed in hand*
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> ...



Of course the other problem is that M. Dion may have been unable to paper over the deep divisions inside his own party caucus because it looks to me as though either Coderre or Martin is off the page.

To further complicate the issue there is another report (same source) that says: 



> Former leadership rival Bob Rae urged Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion yesterday to wait until spring to pull the plug on the minority Harper government rather than forcing an early election over the Tory budget ... Mr. Rae's views were echoed by many MPs and senators at the closed-door national caucus ... Election fever has been spiking on the Hill, with Liberals becoming increasingly undecided about election timing. One day they say they are going to defeat the government on the budget; the next day they back away ... The 60-member Ontario Liberal caucus met before the national caucus yesterday to discuss election timing and the majority told Mr. Dion they did not want to go to the polls now over the budget ... An Atlantic MP echoed that view, saying some would prefer a June election ...



Now that the crime bill is off the table, it’s not clear to me that the Liberals have any real “ballot question” issue except the budget. While I’m fairly sure that a majority of Canadians are opposed, without any particular reason, with principle, to the Afghanistan mission, I’m equally sure that they are not so opposed as to want to fight an election over it. Canadians, are, by and large, confused; they _*want*_ to be the mythical _’peaceable kingdom’_ armed only with baby-blue beret toting ‘peacekeepers’ but they also want to ‘do something’ about the latest outrage that manages to shoulder its way past the perils of Britney, Lindsay and Paris and onto their TV screens. I suspect that most Canadians want to give Manley’s recommendations a fair trial so I don’t think Afghanistan is a big vote getter or loser, for either side.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Feb 2008)

> Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez complained that Mr. Harper misrepresented the Liberal proposal to change the mission by ending the "combat" role as support for extending the existing one.



This would be the same Pablo Rodriguez who misrepresented the concept of ethics when he colluded with the CBC?



> Now that the crime bill is off the table, it’s not clear to me that the Liberals have any real “ballot question” issue except the budget. While I’m fairly sure that a majority of Canadians are opposed, without any particular reason, with principle, to the Afghanistan mission, I’m equally sure that they are not so opposed as to want to fight an election over it. Canadians, are, by and large, confused; they want to be the mythical ’peaceable kingdom’ armed only with baby-blue beret toting ‘peacekeepers’ but they also want to ‘do something’ about the latest outrage that manages to shoulder its way past the perils of Britney, Lindsay and Paris and onto their TV screens. I suspect that most Canadians want to give Manley’s recommendations a fair trial so I don’t think Afghanistan is a big vote getter or loser, for either side.



I'm sure your right, however I think that the footage of the Liberals abstaining and walking out of the house is going to play very well for the Conservatives, regardless of how the Liberals spin it. I wager the next battle with see the Conservatives use Dion's leadership, or lack thereof, as their issue, and the Liberals use fear and the "hidden agenda" argument as theirs.


----------



## geo (14 Feb 2008)

Since when is Mr Rodriguez an MP of any stripe?  

BTW - HE Would be NDP if anything


----------



## Reccesoldier (14 Feb 2008)

Seems to me that the amount I'm hearing/reading about the Liberals/Dion being either *ready* to fight an election or conversely some Liberals/individuals calling on Dion *not* to cause an election that this issue, and all the rest, are triggers looking to be pulled.

It has little to do with any "cause" and is more dependant on partisan politics and possibility of successful election.  Case in point Bob Rae is urging Dion not to trigger an election, this "news" comes concurrently with a poll placing the Torries at 37% and the libs at 32% nationally.

Election


Poll

Oh, just to be less than partisan myself, I have no doubt that the Conservatives would orchestrate their fall if it were in their interest as well.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Feb 2008)

Here is a report, reproduced under the fair dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ that says to me that M. Stéphane Dion is either the most duplicitous, deceitful politician to come down the road since Jean Chrétien or he is, simply, a simpleton:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080215.wletter0215/BNStory/National/home


> Dion urges Harper to accept Liberal position on Afghanistan
> 
> The Canadian Press
> 
> ...



How can anyone with the brains the gods gave to green peppers square the circle of “[Canada] cannot abandon the people of Afghanistan” with “Canada's mission has to change”?  Only a blinkered fool could argue that M. Dion wants to do the former.

I urge Prime Minister Harper to amend M. Dion’s amendment to ensure that Canada does not abandon the people of Afghanistan – that means “security” must be inserted as one of the main objectives of the mission and the rubbish about a 2011 withdrawal date must be excised.

M. Dion is either a charlatan or a fool, no other option presents itself.


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Feb 2008)

Three more worth reading:

Dion himself:

Let's define values and goals for the mission that all Canadians can respect
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080215.wcodion15/BNStory/specialComment/home

_Globe _editorial:

Denis Coderre's version
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080215.weliberals/BNStory/specialComment/home


> ...
> The only major difference of opinion with the government seemed to be a Liberal insistence that the mission end in 2011. But by the next day, this united front had already crumbled. While Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez suggested that the party had not been clear enough in communicating its position and that it remained at odds with the Tories, his caucus mate Denis Coderre went further, freelancing policy positions that were nowhere to be found in the Liberal amendment. Most significant among an array of baffling musings was Mr. Coderre's response when asked whether the Canadian battle group would remain in Kandahar under the Liberal plan. "No. Not in my book."
> 
> Mr. Coderre's book might not have been quite as relevant if he were a junior MP like Mr. Rodriguez. Perhaps it is too much to expect complete unity on such a divisive issue. But Mr. Coderre is the Liberals' defence critic. Yet on the most important matter pertaining to the military, he appears to be contradicting his leader and making it up as he goes along...



_National Post_ editorial:

The Liberals' many Afghan policies
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=309122


> ...
> Feeling dizzy yet?..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 Feb 2008)

Codierre will has said just about anything to be in the spotlight.  The guy would talk to a security camera if he thought the guards were watching.


----------



## RangerRay (15 Feb 2008)

Mein Gott in Himmel!  I can't make sense of those clowns!  (The Liberals)  They have a new position every day!

 :


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2008)

Well, Dion is 'leading' them.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2008)

What makes me want to crack their heads together like coconuts is we are ALREADY doing the mission they are saying we need to do: the KPRT is busy with development and reconstruction work, while the OMLT is busy training the ANA. You can find the KPRT website with minimal google-fu, while the continuing growth of the ANA (five battalions by the end of this tour in Kandahar province, more than twice the number of extra NATO troops requested in the Manley report). 

None of this is possible without the field force being able to clear the path, so to speak, and the Taliban will fight viciously to burn schools, mine roads, poision wells and kill the women who have received micro-loans and children who go to school regardless of the posture the ISAF and ANA forces take.

No politician even has to go to Afghanistan to find this out, NDHQ is a short bike ride from Parliament Hill (or you can strap on your orange backpack and walk, if you are so inclined), full briefings and question and answer periods are probably sitting spooled up in every office and conference room in the building for just such an eventuality. Lots of soldiers who have done the tour live in and around Ottawa, and Petawawa is a short drive down the road if you want to talk to more people and get a wider view.

As for the long term, the key moment will be ten years from now as the six million children going to school today reach graduation and are ready to become the skilled and educated work force needed to organize, build and maintain the institutions and infrastructure of a modern State. We may not need to have a military presence in Afghanistan by then (except perhaps in an advisory role), but we pledged ourselves as a nation to help the people of Afghanistan, and should stand with them until (and especially on) graduation day.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Feb 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> As for the long term, the key moment will be ten years from now as the six million children going to school today reach graduation and are ready to become the skilled and educated work force needed to organize, build and maintain the institutions and infrastructure of a modern State. We may not need to have a military presence in Afghanistan by then (except perhaps in an advisory role), but we pledged ourselves as a nation to help the people of Afghanistan, and should stand with them until (and especially on) graduation day.



Exactly. The concept of instant results in an anathema to the Afghan. In addition to the "insh allah" approach to life, the Afghans generally take the long view and wait until they see who is the real victor before they decide who to support. Anyone who's spent time in the country will tell you that nothing happens with any degree of speed in Afghanistan.

Our politicians, fellow citizens, and the media need to realize that in the real world there is no such thing as instant gratification. One can't rehabilitate and rebuild a country that has been at war for thirty years over the span of a couple of six month tours.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a report on the new Tory motion:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080221.wafghanmission0221/BNStory/Afghanistan/home


> New Afghan motion sets 2011 as mission end date
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> 
> ...



If this report is accurate then *Prime Minister Harper has caved* unless he inserted specific language making *security* a stated part of the mission. He is also sentencing his government or the next government, anyway, to a _death by a thousand cuts_ scenario because:

•	The Afghanistan Compact will surely be renewed, in some form, and security will be part of the deal; and

•	We (the West, ISAF, NATO, Canada, etc) will most likely not be ready and able to declare victory and come home; but

•	The _loony left_ will be all over this, again, like a mortarman with the last donut, demanding: “Troops OUT, Now!”


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Feb 2008)

From the PMO via e-mail, a tiny bit more detail....

PRIME MINISTER HARPER UNVEILS REVISED MOTION ON THE FUTURE OF CANADA’S MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN

February 21, 2008
Ottawa, Ontario

In a speech to the Conference of Defence Associations today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper unveiled details of the Government’s revised motion on the future of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan.

Prime Minister Harper noted that the revised motion represents an effort to achieve a bi-partisan consensus in the House on the future of the mission. It builds on the original Government motion derived from the recommendations of the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan by incorporating large elements of a motion proposed by the Liberal party. “This motion acknowledges what is required for Canada’s mission to succeed in Afghanistan,” said the Prime Minister.

”I am pleased that there is some fundamental common ground between the Government and the Official Opposition, particularly agreement that the mission should continue until 2011 and that operational decisions should be left to Canadian commanders on the ground in Afghanistan.”

The details of the revised motion were part of a speech outlining the role Canada and its military should play in the global security landscape. Highlighting the Government’s commitment to rebuilding the military and Canada’s long-standing tradition as a reliable partner and ally in the quest for global security, the Prime Minister announced that the Government has decided to set aside stable and predictable funding for this plan by increasing the automatic annual increase in defence spending from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent, beginning in 2011-12. This increase will be reflected in the fiscal framework. 

This funding, together with new and upgraded equipment, will improve the general effectiveness and safety of Canada’s troops.

“The successful pursuit of all of Canada’s interests around the world – trade, investment, diplomatic and humanitarian – ultimately depends on security,” said Prime Minister Harper. “That’s why we need to build a first-class modern military and keep it that way.”



_- edited to add link to statement (if you can get it to open up properly because of "stuck", non-Common Look & Feel graphics) -_


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2008)

The *'logic'* escapes me. If a precipitous withdrawal is unacceptable in 2009 why is it OK in 2011?


----------



## GAP (21 Feb 2008)

I think Harper is being too clever by half....by seeming to gracefully accept the demand for withdrawl of the troops by 2011 from the liberals in order to gain a concensus on "finishing the job", he is actually getting rid of a real headache. 

Afghanistan seems to bog down his agenda with a multitude of crisis. It has, in part, been a minor factor in him not being in majority area. Getting rid of it and getting the CF into something "blue helmeted" has more appeal. 

It's all about his search for a majority.


----------



## Greymatters (21 Feb 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The *'logic'* escapes me. If a precipitous withdrawal is unacceptable in 2009 why is it OK in 2011?



Gives them another two years in which they can try to convince the country to continue with the mission?


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Feb 2008)

There is the hope that by 2011 the ANA wont need as many foreign troops and they should be able to handle the heavy lifting.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (21 Feb 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> There is the hope that by 2011 the ANA wont need as many foreign troops and they should be able to handle the heavy lifting.



I personally believe the date to be around 2015 before the ANA can be in the position to do the heavy lifting; provided they have the infrastructure and support systems in place to do it.


----------



## Reccesoldier (21 Feb 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> It's all about his search for a majority.



In return he, just like every other politician is willing to sacrifice principal for politics, the right course for the safe course and any real victory for a momentary one.  

Mark me down as one of the Scorched Earth Types.

Death of a Thousand cuts Edward?  Not just for the government but for our society as well.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> There is the hope that by 2011 the ANA wont need as many foreign troops and they should be able to handle the heavy lifting.



There is also hope that the tooth fairy will leave me a million bucks because I floss regularly. One is a well founded as the other.


----------



## Greymatters (21 Feb 2008)

Im thinking you might want to put your money on the tooth fairy...


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Feb 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Gives them another two years in which they can try to convince the country to continue with the mission?



Or to convince enough of the other parties in the House of Commons to keep the government going...


----------



## Flip (21 Feb 2008)

> The 'logic' escapes me. If a precipitous withdrawal is unacceptable in 2009 why is it OK in 2011?



Since there will be an election before 2011 but not neccesarily before 2009 we can "back burner" this for now.
If Harper wins a majority, He'll do as he wants.(amid howls of protest)
If Harper loses, 2011 is better than before 2011.

It isn't honest - It's politics  ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Feb 2008)

I saw Prime Minister Harper speak at the CDA meeting.  Besides the 2011 Kandahar (and Kandahar only) mission end date, which a subsequent Parliament can easily change under the apparent new derogation of the authority to deploy military forces from the Crown (Governor-in-Council, i.e. Cabinet, maybe these days PM) to Parliament (quite a constitutional innovation), the prime minister also said the government would



> *...leave operational decisions to commanders on the ground*.



This appears an attempt to find common ground with the Liberal position, as I have put it--but still leave room for "combat":
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/afstan-good-sense-in-toronto-star.html



> M. Dion also said it would be up to the Canadian military actually to devise the detailed rules of engagement to implement the operational constraints [no "pro-active" combat] the Liberals would place on the mission.



But the government's new position would put an impossible burden on commanders on the ground.  It is *up to the government to define what type of operations the CF should conduct in the broad sense that is meant by both the PM and M. Dion*.  It is not up to the CF to make those types of "operational decisions"; hell, a commander might think it a good military ("operational") move to strike into Pakistan.

Mr Harper is trying, in order to win a political victory, to muddy the fundamental responsibilities for the conduct of military operations between the civil and military authorities.  I do not like, nor respect, that approach.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## QV (21 Feb 2008)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080221/afghan_motion_080221/20080221?hub=TopStories


Nice to read good comments for a change. (posted at end of article for those that don't know)


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Feb 2008)

Isn't it sad that when I see so much POSITIVE material about the gov't in MSM, I get nervous.....


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Feb 2008)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> ....  the government's new position would put an impossible burden on commanders on the ground.  It is *up to the government to define what type of operations the CF should conduct in the broad sense that is meant by both the PM and M. Dion*.  It is not up to the CF to make those types of "operational decisions"; hell, a commander might think it a good military ("operational") move to strike into Pakistan.  Mr Harper is trying, in order to win a political victory, to muddy the fundamental responsibilities for the conduct of military operations between the civil and military authorities.



Interesting that this doesn't follow the traditional "politicians determine & communicate WHAT they want done, soldiers determine and implement HOW it's to be done".  Certainly opens the door for criticism to the effect that the government wants to win in Parliament, but disavow any mistakes or problems if they arise.

BTW, has anyone seen the wording of said new, "improved" resolution yet?  Also, it's interesting that while the PM's news release is up all over (on both gov't and party web pages), the speech text isn't yet.  I await both the res'n and the speech with interest....


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Feb 2008)

Here, copied from the CBC web site, is the revised Conservative motion (21 Feb 08) with my proposed changes in yellow:

( strike-through = delete existing text and underline = insert new text)

----------​
* Government Motion*

That, whereas, 

this House recognizes the important contribution and sacrifice of Canadian Forces and Canadian civilian personnel as part of the UN mandated, NATO-led mission deployed in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan; 

this House believes that Canada must remain committed to the people of Afghanistan beyond February 2009; 

this House takes note that in February 2002, the government took a decision to deploy 850 troops to Kandahar to join the international coalition that went to Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and that this deployment lasted for six months at which time the troops rotated out of Afghanistan and returned home; 

this House takes note that in February 2003 the government took a decision that Canada would commit 2000 troops and lead for one year, starting in the summer of 2003, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul and at the end of the one-year commitment, Canada's 2000 troop commitment was reduced to a 750-person reconnaissance unit as Canada's NATO ally, Turkey, rotated into Kabul to replace Canada as the lead nation of the ISAF mission; 

this House takes note that in August 2005, Canada assumed responsibility of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar province which included roughly 300 Canadian Forces personnel; 

this House takes note that the government took a decision to commit a combat Battle Group of roughly 1200 troops to Kandahar for a period of one year, from February 2006 to February 2007; 

this House takes note that in January 2006, the government participated in the London Conference on Afghanistan which resulted in the signing of the Afghanistan Compact which set out benchmarks and timelines until the end of 2010 for improving the security, the governance and the economic and social development of Afghanistan; 

this House takes note that in May 2006, Parliament supported the government's two year extension of Canada's deployment of diplomatic, development, civilian police and military personnel in Afghanistan and the provision of funding and equipment for this extension; 

this House welcomes the Report of the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan, chaired by the Honourable John Manley, and recognizes the important contribution its members have made; 

this House takes note that it has long been a guiding principle of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan that all three components of a comprehensive government strategy - defence, diplomacy and development - must reinforce each other and that the government must strike a balance between these components to be most effective; 

this House takes note that the ultimate aim of Canadian policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure and to create the necessary space and conditions to allow the Afghans themselves to achieve a political solution to the conflict; and 

this House takes note that in order to achieve that aim, it is essential to assist the people of Afghanistan to have properly trained, equipped and paid members of the four pillars of their security apparatus: the army, the police, the judicial system and the corrections system; 

therefore, 

it is the opinion of this 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 shall consist of: 

(a) training the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can expeditiously take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole; 

(b) providing security for the training, reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar; and 

(c) the continuation of Canada's responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team; 

And it is the opinion of this House that, consistent with this mandate, this extension of Canada's military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that: 

(a) NATO secure a battle group of approximately 1000 to rotate into Kandahar (operational no later than February 2009); 

(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 (UAVs) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009; and 

(c) the government of Canada notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011 review its commitments to Afghanistan, under the Afghanistan Compact,  at the end of 2010, and, as of that date, will aim to have begun 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; 

And it is the opinion of this House that the government of Canada, together with our allies and the government of Afghanistan, must set firm targets and timelines for the training, equipping and paying of the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, the members of the judicial system and the members of the correctional system; 

And it is the opinion of this House that Canada's contribution to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan should: 

(a) be revamped and increased to strike a better balance between our military efforts and our development efforts in Afghanistan; 

(b) focus on our traditional strengths as a nation, particularly through the development of sound judicial and correctional systems and strong political institutions on the ground in Afghanistan and the pursuit of a greater role for Canada in addressing the chronic fresh water shortages in the country; 

(c) address the crippling issue of the narco-economy that consistently undermines progress in Afghanistan, through the pursuit of solutions that do not further alienate the goodwill of the local population; and 

(d) be held to a greater level of accountability and scrutiny so that the Canadian people can be sure that our development contributions are being spent effectively in Afghanistan; 

And it is the opinion of this House that Canada should assert a stronger and more disciplined diplomatic position regarding Afghanistan and the regional players, including support for the naming of a special envoy to the region who could both ensure greater coherence in all diplomatic initiatives in the region and also press for greater coordination amongst our partners in the UN in the pursuit of common diplomatic goals in the region; 

And it is the opinion of this House that the Government should provide the public with franker and more frequent and more detailed reportsing on events in Afghanistan, offering more assessments of Canada's role and giving greater emphasis to the diplomatic and reconstruction efforts as well as those of the military and, for greater clarity, the Government should table in Parliament detailed reports on the progress of the mission in Afghanistan on a quarterly basis; 

And it is the opinion of this House that the House of Commons should strike a special Parliamentary committee on Afghanistan which would meet regularly with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and National Defence and other senior officials and that the House should authorize travel by the special committee to Afghanistan and the surrounding region so that the special committee can make frequent recommendations on the conduct and progress of our efforts in Afghanistan; 

And it is the opinion of this House that the special Parliamentary Committee on Afghanistan should review the laws and procedures governing the use of operational and national security exceptions for the withholding of information from Parliament, the Courts and the Canadian people with those responsible for administering those laws and procedures, to ensure that Canadians are being provided with ample information on the conduct and progress of the mission; 

And it is the opinion of this House that with respect to the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities, the Government must: 

(a) commit to meeting the highest NATO and international standards with respect to protecting the rights of detainees, transferring only when it believes it can do so in keeping with Canada's international obligations; 

(b) pursue a NATO-wide solution to the question of detainees through diplomatic efforts that are rooted in the core Canadian values of respect for human rights and the dignity of all people; and 

(c) commit to a policy of greater transparency with respect to its policy on the taking of and transferring of detainees including a commitment to report on the results of reviews or inspections of Afghan prisons undertaken by Canadian officials; 

And it is the opinion of this House that the government must commit to improved interdepartmental coordination to achieve greater cross-government coherence and coordination of the government's domestic management of our commitment to Afghanistan, including the creation of a full-time task force which is responsible directly to the Prime Minister to lead these efforts. 

----------​
I’m about 95% sure that these changes would be unacceptable because I’m about 96% sure that Flip is correct: the Conservative motion was crafted for immediate, partisan political advantage, not to do what’s right for Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Feb 2008)

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is columnist Don Martin’s take:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=324930


> Afghan plan carved in paper
> *Comment: Liberal, Tory motions are virtual photocopies*
> 
> Don Martin, National Post  Published: Friday, February 22, 2008
> ...



I have to agree. Harper _”clearly relishes being a middle-power leader with the capacity to unleash "peace-enforcement missions" at will -- a country no longer ignored as the nation of blue helmets with binoculars for weaponry.”_ All Canadians should ‘relish’ that – heaven knows it’s a much needed about turn from the Liberals’ policies that remain rooted in Trudeau’s silly, sophomoric, sad little 1970 foreign policy failure. But: we have to be *for* something, something substantial – just having the ‘capacity,’ just having the attention of the world is insufficient.

There are good and valid reasons for being a leader amongst the middle powers – we have vital national interests to promote and protect and we have values we want to share with the world. We need to do more than just hide in _Festung Amerika_ and revel in our moral superiority. If we want to ‘make a difference’ then we must establish and enunciate principled policies and back them up with credible military muscle. Prime Minister Harper, while *better* for Canada than any of the immediately available alternatives, seems unwilling or unable to do what needs doing. Perhaps, one can hope, he actually has some ideas and ideals that will appear, magically, when (if) he gets a majority government. Perhaps, one fears, he is only an able political tactician for whom power is the only end.


----------



## Flip (22 Feb 2008)

> Perhaps, one can hope, he actually has some ideas and ideals that will appear, magically, when (if) he gets a majority government.


I have seen some evidence of this.  An early example was to amend the "Tainted blood"
settlement to include many who were excluded by Alan Rock's crass lawyering.
Alan Rock offended my "Canadian values" right down to my socks with that one. 


> Perhaps, one fears, he is only an able political tactician for whom power is the only end.


 As opposed to the Liberals sense of entitlement? Their rejection and opposition 
to anything they don't bring into the house. The liberals numerous reversals on the mission itself?
Edward, I understand your perhaps cynical fears, but I do not share them. 

 Stephen Harper is going to have to do some wrong stuff to get the right stuff done.
Especially, given the overall tone of the house........ ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Feb 2008)

Odd but just last fall the government was discussing pulling out in 09. Now its 2011 that Canada will depart Afghanistan a 2 year extension. Harper is trying to buy time for events on the ground, as well as for his future as PM. Neither party wants an election right now and so an accommodation on policy will occur. This will innoculate the conservatives from Liberal sniping and is a much better situation than in the US where the two parties are at odds over the war.

The mission of NATO in Afghanistan should be that of a shield while the ANA and AP gain strength and competence. As this occurs NATO can step back into a support/mentoring role. The US role will remain unchanged at least until OBL and his minions are confirmed kills.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Feb 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is the Canadian Press’ take on the CDS’ views:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080222.whillier0222/BNStory/National/home


> Hillier asks for strong parliamentary support for Afghan mission
> 
> The Canadian Press
> 
> ...



Sometimes I wonder about the _spin_ the CP puts on stories. The CP reports says that: _”[The] new motion ... says the mission will focus on training and reconstruction after next February”_ but the motion (quoted, in full, in an earlier post) says:



> ... the military mission shall consist of:
> 
> (a) training the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can expeditiously take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole;
> 
> ...



The new motion clearly spells out training, *security* and reconstruction, in that order, but the CP reporter managed to miss that.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Feb 2008)

Two posts at _The Torch_ on General Hillier's February 22 speech to the Conference of Defence Associations:

Misrepresenting Hillier
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/misrepresenting-hillier.html

CDS General Hillier, Afghanistan and Parliament
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/cds-hillier-afstan-and-parliament.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Feb 2008)

The repeaters from CTV, G & M (same corporate ownership), as well as their comrades from the Toronto Star and CBC attended the same halls of schooling as their liberal buddies at The New York Times.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Feb 2008)

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, caught my eye:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080225.wafghan25/BNStory/Afghanistan/home


> U.S. military urges Canada to maintain combat role
> *Training, reconstruction, fighting are linked, leader of U.S. Central Command says*
> 
> OMAR EL AKKAD
> ...



Maybe no one read the motion to Adm. Fallon but it says:



> therefore,
> 
> it is the opinion of this 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 shall consist of:
> 
> ...



Now that doesn’t exactly say that it’s our job to clear the Taliban out of Kandahar but it says we have to take the fight to the Taliban while we help get the Afghans, themselves, ready and able to do te job, as they should – as they must if they are ever going to win this war for themselves.

Canadian politicians should heed the wisdom in Adm. Fallon’s caution re: how the al Qaeda, the Taliban and their fellow travellers follow our debates. Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton ought to know that they are encouraging the Taliban, etc to take the offensive, against Canadian troops, because the Taliban and hangers on perceive a weakness and want to exploit it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Feb 2008)

A bit more from CTV's folks, shared with usual disclaimer:



> *U.S. admiral echoes Gen. Hillier's concerns*
> Updated Sun. Feb. 24 2008 3:54 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...



It'll be interesting to see who will be the first politican to say out loud to reporters:  "When we say 'train' the Afghan troops, we don't mean 'fight alongside them'."


----------



## Reccesoldier (25 Feb 2008)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> It'll be interesting to see who will be the first politican to say out loud to reporters:  "When we say 'train' the Afghan troops, we don't mean 'fight alongside them'."



The Russians tried that route (train but not fight with) and it was a failure.  The Afgan's rightly or wrongly (I think wrongly) expect those that are there to help and train them to share the burden of combat with them.  It is a respect thing and I think it has cultural roots.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Feb 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is the latest from today’s _Globe and Mail_:



> Afghan mission most important debate facing nation: MacKay
> *Liberals support revised Conservative motion on Afghanistan as debate begins in House of Commons on extension of Canada's military mission to 2011*
> 
> BRODIE FENLON
> ...



It appears that both Harper and Dion have surrendered their principles – to one another.


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Feb 2008)

Taliban will target Canadians if they sense political weakness (usual copyright disclaimer)
_Globe and Mail_, Feb. 25, by Christie Blatchford 
http://ago.mobile.globeandmail.com/generated/archive/RTGAM/html/20080225/wblatch25.html



> The last time I was in Kandahar, last fall, I had a few calls from one of The Globe and Mail's fixers, the man whose particular job it is to make contacts with local elders and the Taliban and to report back to the journalist in the field.
> 
> These conversations were all pretty much of a piece.
> 
> ...



In the Commons' debate today M. Dion said clearly that the 1,000 additional NATO troops at Kandahar the government is demanding would take over those things our troop would no longer do after February 2009, specifically "counterinsurgency" (the word he used).  
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jqc5q7c8FSc0Zf9xFCSx_UAk12_A



> ...Dion made it clear Liberals have a different interpretation of the word "rotate." They want other NATO troops to take over the lead combat role, leaving Canadian soldiers to focus on reconstruction, security and training Afghan forces...



In other words (though M. Dion did not himself utter the "C" word) no combat in the usual sense of the term for the CF.  I ask:

1) What country will want to send troops to Kandahar to assume the "combat" aspects of the mission if we pull out of them? Moreover, the Manley panel said a new NATO battle group of some 1,000 troops is needed to augment the CF's battle group of the same size. The plain idea is roughly to double the combat capability in the area; M. Dion's position is directly contrary to the point of the Manley recommendation (all this with the Marine MEU aside since it's only supposed to be there seven months).

2) How will Canadian soldiers feel if they are serving alongside NATO comrades, allowed to fight properly when they are not? Bound by caveats, contrary to M. Dion's denial that the Liberal restrictions are in fact caveats?

3) How will Afghans feel about their Canadian comrades training them but not allowed to go on combat operations with them? Their morale will hardly be helped.

M. Dion also said it would be up to the Canadian military actually to determine how to conduct operations under the constraints the Liberals would place on the mission. That would put the CF leadership in a terrible, almost unresolvable, bind--coming up with ROEs that best serve the safety of our troops without being able to take the initiative against the enemy in a war zone.

In any event, why no "combat" when most of our casualties are caused by IEDs?   Where's the logic?  Joke.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/liberal-policy-on-afstan-no-logic.html

Our political Fantasyland.
http://www.disneydreamer.com/disneyland/fantasy.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Feb 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It appears that both Harper and Dion have surrendered their principles – to one another.



Whatever it takes to stay in power, or avoid an election you can't win, respectively.


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Feb 2008)

Whom to believe?

The _Ottawa Citizen_?

Liberals to support Afghan extension
Dion applauds Tories for compromises
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=0a732db0-4866-43bc-9b56-9dfd9f5b2cb4

The _Toronto Star_?

Motion on Afghan mission hits snag
Liberals deliver ultimatum on ending combat operations
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/306883

Our ace media at it again. In fact I think the _Star's_ headline is more accurate--if the Liberals stick to their guns (as it were), which they likely won't given recent precedents.

See also:

The "C" word
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/c-word.html

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Feb 2008)

A post at _The Torch_:

Afstan: Haroon Siddiqui is economical with the truth/MND tentative
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/afstan-haroon-siddiqui-is-economical.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## sgf (1 Mar 2008)

Two interesting articles that I have recently came across. The first is from the UK, The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/29/afghanistan.terrorism

and the second is from todays Globe

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080301.wcanukafghan0301/BNStory/Afghanistan/home


----------



## GAP (1 Mar 2008)

To expand on sgf's post.....4 pages long....pretty comprehensive

The ugly truth in Afghanistan
GRAEME SMITH AND PAUL KORING  From Saturday's Globe and Mail March 1, 2008 at 12:28 AM EST
Article Link

KABUL AND WASHINGTON — When managers from all the major humanitarian agencies in Kandahar gathered in a high-walled compound to swap war stories last month, it wasn't the tales of kidnappings and suicide bombs that caused the most worry. Nor was it the reports of insurgents enforcing their own brutal laws and executing aid workers.

"The scary thing was, no foreigners attended the meeting," a participant said. "Everybody had evacuated."

Most aid organizations quietly withdrew their international staff from Kandahar in recent weeks, the latest sign that the situation here is getting worse. It's now almost impossible to spot a foreigner on the city streets, except for the occasional glimpse of a pale face in a troop carrier or a United Nations armoured vehicle.

At least the foreigners can escape. For many ordinary people the ramshackle city now feels like a prison, with the highways out of town regularly blocked by Taliban or bandits. Residents have even started avoiding their own city streets after dark, as formerly bustling shops switch off their colourful neon lights and pull down the shutters. There is rarely any electricity for the lights anyway, partly because the roads are too dangerous for contractors to risk bringing in a new turbine for a nearby hydroelectric generator.
More on link


----------



## sgf (4 Mar 2008)

Today there was a discussion in the Globe and Mail with  Paul Koring, who took some questions from various people. Heres the link

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080303.wkoringdiscussion0303/BNStory/International/home/?pageRequested=1

This is part of the interview



> Tom Morgan, from Canada: I am a supporter of the Afghan mission and believe that any progress in development and stability does require a combat role for Canadian forces. It's hard to build a school when opposing forces are shooting at workers and burning it down once work is complete. However, any mission is subject to improvement, and changes in policy and direction may be required. My question is: Why is the Afghan government not able to take a more active role in security and fighting the Taliban? The Taliban were able to control the majority of Afghanistan and defeat opposing forces without the benefit of substantial support from the international community. From what I understand, the majority of Afghans do not want a return of Taliban rule and prefer an environment where they are able to send their daughters to school, watch movies, listen to music, fly kites, etc. The Afghan government receives money, training, weapons, logistic support, information on Taliban locations and active combat support. Why are they not able to achieve the success of the Taliban?
> 
> Mr. Koring: Good question. And I don't know the answer. Every time I go to Afghanistan I try and get some idea of the progress of the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police. Every time, senior Canadian officers and Afghan commanders assure me (and try and provide examples) of the improvement in the Afghan army and how much, more capable they are. But, frankly, the grim reality on the ground suggests the opposite, that the ANA, even backed by NATO and U.S. forces now operates comfortably in less territory than a year ago. My guess (and that's all it is) is that the army, despite training and effort and weapons, is a long way from winning the "hearts-and-minds" battle. It may be that many, maybe most, Afghans now expect the Karzai government to fall once the Western troops propping it up go away.
> 
> ...


----------



## 31C (4 Mar 2008)

+1 

Thats a real good link. Probably the most concise discussion on the Afghanistan context I have heard to date. Some things need to be said about the mission and suprisingly this rep of the media said them.


----------



## GAP (10 Mar 2008)

Afghan villages struggle in Taliban's orbit
 Monday, March 10, 2008
Article Link

Khakrez, Afghanistan - "Why are you giving them bread and raisins, if the Taliban find out they'll kill us?" an old man snaps as his son serves refreshments to British Gurkha troops patrolling their village in Afghanistan's southern Kandahar province. Cautious residents of Hajikal say this is the first time foreign soldiers have visited the dusty spread of mud compounds, parched fields and orchards that yield meagre harvests of wheat, grapes and pomegranates.

Usually it's Taliban fighters who stop here and across the region for sustenance, demanding food and dishing out beatings to reluctant hosts, according to the locals.

"They live in the mountains at night and they come to the villages during the day," says another man.

Elsewhere, people claim they have to provide shelter and let the Taliban offer prayers in the mosque before they head west to fight the British in Helmand province, north to harass the Dutch in Uruzgan or east through the US and Romanian zone in Zabul to reputed safe havens in Pakistan.

The war in Afghanistan shows no signs of abating, and more than seven years after the Taliban regime was toppled by US-led forces it's unclear how much of the hospitality the insurgents receive today is given willingly or under duress.

"The Taliban have been here for a long time, we are here today and will be gone in a week," says Gurkha intelligence officer Lalit Gurung. "The locals know that and know they have to support the Taliban."
More on link


----------

