# Tories planning on Afghanistan extension: NDP



## darmil (19 Feb 2007)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070219/cda_afghanistan_070219/20070219?hub=TopStories

Tories planning on Afghanistan extension: NDP

Updated Mon. Feb. 19 2007 5:14 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The NDP has released a document indicating the Conservative government is planning to keep Canadian troops in Afghanistan until at least May 2011.

Dawn Black, the party's defence critic, obtained the document through the federal access to information law.

The document lays out troop and command rotations for Joint Task Force Afghanistan.

"I think that's serious planning, and if that's the case, it should come before the House of Commons," Black told reporters after Parliament's question period on Monday.

In the spring of 2006, Black noted the Conservatives had a short period of debate before holding a vote on extending the current mission to 2009.

"If plans are afoot to extend it to 2011, that deserves to have a very thorough, high-level, informed debate within Parliament before a decision is made."

In question period, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said: "I have answered this question a number of times. The member is confusing the military internal plan which is based upon the Afghanistan compact and government direction. If she reads the plan in detail, she will notice that the military acknowledge that they are committed to the end of February 2009, however, they plan beyond those dates because the Afghan compact goes until 2011."

"The government has said that we are committed to the end of February 2009. No further decision has been made. The government, when it finds it appropriate, will make the decision on what happens if and when the events occur after 2009," he added.

The document indicates that Canada's three largest regiments -- the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI), the Petawawa, Ont.-based Royal Canadian Regiment and the Val Cartier, Que.-based Royal 22nd Regiment (Van Doos) -- will rotate through Afghanistan two more times by 2011.

PPLCI has served two tours so far in southern Afghanistan.

The Royal Canadian Regiment just finished a rotation, and the Van Doos have just started one.

"There's been no sign-off on that, but at the very least, the military is putting together a plan to keep Canada's soldiers in Afghanistan through 2011," CTV's David Akin told Newsnet.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Feb 2007)

I dont see what the issue is.  It is the military's job to have plans in case the mandate is extended.  What does the NDP expect us to do....make plans at the last minute when it is too late ?

Idiots  :


----------



## MikeM (19 Feb 2007)

Careful aviator... logical thinking is dangerous


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Feb 2007)

Land sake's alive--the CF just can't quit planning in case some government asks them to do something.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/57701.0.html

Let's just expose all planning done anywhere in the government and see what can be made of it politically.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Feb 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Land sake's alive--the CF just can't quit planning in case some government asks them to do something.
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/57701.0.html
> Let's just expose all planning done anywhere in the government and see what can be made of it politically.



To be honest, I'm surprised more reporters don't choose to take advantage of picking such relatively low hanging fruit - the stuff is available for cheap via ATIP (as long as you can wait for a bit), the bureaucrats do all the homework in pretty good detail, and the reporter doesn't have to do a lot of digging once the CD or envelope gets to him/her, and s/he can pick/choose the fragment that can get the most journalistic bang.  Context?  Heck, in a perfect world, that's the follow-up longer feature piece - maybe.

But I'm not being bitter, am I?   ;D


----------



## onecat (20 Feb 2007)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> I dont see what the issue is.  It is the military's job to have plans in case the mandate is extended.  What does the NDP expect us to do....make plans at the last minute when it is too late ?
> 
> Idiots  :




Of course, we all know the evil conservative want nothing more than to sink canada endless wars....that can only be stopped if you vote for jack.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Feb 2007)

Apparently, cdnavigator, your're more correct than we might have first guessed about the NDP's modus operendi - check out the highlighted bits....

*Tours of duty plotted until 2011*
Military says proposed rotations are just part of prudent planning
Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star, 20 Feb 07
Article Link

OTTAWA–Canada's military has planned troop rotations to Afghanistan through to 2011 – two years past the current commitment, prompting opposition questions about whether the federal Conservatives intend to extend the mission.

But military planners insist no decisions have been made and say they're just doing some blue-sky thinking to organize their military manpower.

"The government has been pretty clear about the 2009 mandate and we are simply doing our bit as prudent planners," said Maj. Daryl Morrell, an army spokesperson.

"We go where the government tells us to go and we are there for how long they tell us to be there."

Still, the proposed rotations, planned past May 2011, prompted questions from federal New Democrats yesterday who obtained the details in army documents released under access-to-information legislation.

*"It is hard to see where civilian oversight is taking place at DND. How can the military plan rotations that Parliament has not approved?" New Democrat MP Dawn Black (New Westminster-Coquitlam) asked in question period.*

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said the Conservative government has made no plans to extend the mission past 2009.

"No further decision has been made. The government, when it finds it appropriate, will make the decision on what happens if and when the events occur after 2009," he told the House of Commons.

The federal Conservatives extended the mission once by two years to February 2009 – a decision narrowly endorsed by Parliament last May.

But the defence department has prepared contingency plans for a mission beyond that date, according to documents that detail proposed rotations for troop and command contingents for Joint Task Force Afghanistan.

If the mission is extended past February 2009, the 2nd Battalion, Royal 22e Régiment, based in Quebec City, would be deployed. They would be followed by the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, from Edmonton in August 2009.

Those troops would be replaced by 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, from CFB Petawawa in February 2010. The 1st Battalion, Royal 22e Régiment, also from Quebec City, would head over in August 2010 on a deployment to end sometime after May 2011.

Military leaders have warned that Afghanistan will need foreign military and development help long past Canada's 2009 commitment.

"If we are extending it or if there are plans to consider extending it, that debate should happen within the House of Commons in a substantive way," Black said, "so that Canadians and military families and the Canadian Forces themselves understand what's being talked about and what the potential is."

The army plans are no indication those troops will actually be deployed, Morrell said in an interview yesterday. "This is part of the army having forces ready to deploy wherever the government tells us ... ," he said yesterday in an interview. "It takes a while to train these guys ... We have to be prepared to react to government direction."

If the plans become reality, that would break a pledge military and political leaders made to have troops serve only one Afghan tour.


----------



## armyvern (20 Feb 2007)

Clearly,

The NDP would rather have us not contingency plan. That way, if the mission IS extended by the government of the day in 2009, they'll have something new to keep whining about.

The way they'd apparently like to see it done is no planning, no prep, no financial forecasts. Then at the end of 2009 if an extension happens, and the CF has to pull 2500 troops out of our collective butts with no planning, prep and training for those soldiers for their deployment, the NDP can again "support their troops."

They'll do that by yelling and screaming about how the government is deploying all these 'extended mission' personnel with no training, no notice and at the last minute. You see things like this justify their existance. If they weren't whining about the military somehow they just wouldn't be the NDP.


----------



## observor 69 (20 Feb 2007)

Iraq dogs Afghan mission
Feb 20, 2007 04:30 AM 
James Travers 

OTTAWA - Here's a puzzler with life, death and election consequences. Question: What's more threatening to Canada's Kandahar mission than the expected Taliban spring offensive? Answer: Confusing the war in Afghanistan with the war in Iraq.

The reason rests squarely on modern reality. Troops sent abroad must constantly look over their shoulders at public opinion at home.

Wars fought by democracies are struggles for not one but two sets of hearts and minds. Soldiers can't beat the formidable odds against them without convincing skeptical voters along with suspicious locals that the interlopers are there to help.

Iraq is an instructive example. Even in the embarrassing absence of weapons of mass destruction, toppling Saddam Hussein could have justified the misadventure if the U.S. hadn't so quickly morphed from solution to problem.

From the careless early failure to provide Iraqis with security and life's basics to the grotesque Abu Ghraib abuses and Saddam execution, the Bush administration consistently alienated its twin constituencies. Predictably, Iraqis turned to sectarian leaders for protection and Americans turned first against the war and then against George W. Bush.

More to follow: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/183408


----------



## wannabe SF member (20 Feb 2007)

I don't get it, are you saying that people here confuse our deployment in A-stan with Iraq ???


----------



## armyvern (20 Feb 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Iraq dogs Afghan mission
> Feb 20, 2007 04:30 AM
> James Travers
> 
> ...



Interesting that public opinion is vastly influenced by the Main Stream Media and their misleading articles/statements such as the one below from this exact same article:



> From the careless early failure to provide Iraqis with security and life's basics to the grotesque Abu Ghraib abuses and *Saddam execution*, the Bush administration consistently alienated its twin constituencies. Predictably, Iraqis turned to sectarian leaders for protection and Americans turned first against the war and then against George W. Bush.



Hmmm, interestingly enough (my emphasis above) the US actually tried to stop the *IRAQI judicial system * from proceeding with this execution. This article would lead one to perceive that it was the US who executed Mr. Hussein and that is absolutely false.

Yep, it's always the governments fault or failure/shortcomings of the military. When does the MSM start taking credit for their role in this with the inaccurate spins and outright fallacies which some of them unabashedly print and seem to be AOK?


----------



## observor 69 (20 Feb 2007)

Chawki Bensalem said:
			
		

> I don't get it, are you saying that people here confuse our deployment in A-stan with Iraq ???



I am saying the writer of the article, James Travers, has an interesting viewpoint that is useful for "people here" to be aware of.


----------



## observor 69 (20 Feb 2007)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Hmmm, interestingly enough (my emphasis above) the US actually tried to stop the *IRAQI judicial system * from proceeding with this execution. This article would lead one to perceive that it was the US who executed Mr. Hussein and that is absolutely false.



Agreed Vern that the US authorities in Iraq "tried" to stop the execution. But I think Mr.Travers point is that they didn't and that is just seen by the public, US and Canada , as another mission failure.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Feb 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Agreed Vern that the US authorities in Iraq "tried" to stop the execution. But I think Mr.Travers point is that they didn't and that is just seen by the public, US and Canada , as another mission failure.



It should read as "seen by *SOME* of the public, US and Canada, as another mission failure."

I don't find his execution as a mission failure. I percieve it as a mission success.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Feb 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> ... I think Mr.Travers point is that they didn't and that is just seen by the public, US and Canada , as another mission failure.



I agree; motive and ‘try’ don’t matter much in the hindsight.

The *perception* is that America stumbled into the wrong war for the wrong reasons and, after a series of grotesque military, administrative and diplomatic blunders, America will be defeated, again, à la Viet Nam 30+ years ago.

The *perception* may be unfair and wrong and it may have been created, from the get go, by the media, but, for a huge majority of people, all over the world - including in North America, perception = reality.


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Feb 2007)

> "It is hard to see where civilian oversight is taking place at DND. How can the military plan rotations that Parliament has not approved?" New Democrat MP Dawn Black (New Westminster-Coquitlam) asked in question period.



Just like the planning for Croatia/BH, Kosovo, East Timor, Eritrea/Ethiopia, Afstan in 2001, 2003 and Grizzlies/Darfur (yes Ms. Black we are invovlved in Sudan) that was done without approval by Parliament?   Does she want every bit of CF planning done for every possible force deployment voted on by the House of Commons? Does she want to bring Parliament to an even more grinding halt?  Why do our media not question such absurd statements?  But I guess we know the answer to the last question.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Feb 2007)

And why cannot MND O'Connor do a better job in the House?  He almost invariably appears to be avoiding issues or giving incomplete answers that really do not explaing what the government and CF are doing, and why.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081 (20 Feb 2007)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Apparently, *cdnavigator*, your're more ..........




Ok....that does it........you're the 3rd one this week !!

I changed my bloody name so you people can stop calling me a freakin' navigator


----------



## GAP (20 Feb 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Ok....that does it........you're the 3rd one this week !!
> 
> I changed my bloody name so you people can stop calling me a freakin' navigator



Is that the same thing as not being able to walk and chew bubble gum?


----------



## NL_engineer (20 Feb 2007)

Chawki Bensalem said:
			
		

> I don't get it, are you saying that people here confuse our deployment in A-stan with Iraq ???


In shot YES

There are many people out there that keep saying that we should not be in Iraq.  When politely informed that we are not in Iraq but Afghanistan: they ether call them both the same  : or claim Government conspiracy : and some will walk away more informed  ;D.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Feb 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Ok....that does it........you're the 3rd one this week !!
> 
> I changed my bloody name so you people can stop calling me a freakin' navigator



No offense intended - my mistake...


----------



## cplcaldwell (20 Feb 2007)

> ... they ether call them both the same  ....



Kabul to Baghdad ~ 2000 miles

Toronto to Mexico City ~ 2000 miles
Toronto to Vancouver ~ 2000 miles
Pangnirtung to Calgary ~ 2000 miles
Halifax to Reykjavik ~ 2000 miles
St John's to Dublin ~ 2000 miles

Hell yeh, they're practically _all_ in the same place....


----------



## Groucho (20 Feb 2007)

I know that I have been a reservist most of my 20 years and may be missing the bigger picture that the NDP have of the world. So the Forces should not plan for an extension of the Afghanistan mission until Parliament has its say on an extension . OK BUT how is the government of the day going to know if the mission can be extended?   Or are they hoping by saying the CF should not plan for an extension the ONLY THING that can happen is  the government of the day must withdraw the troops! Is this how the NDP would run the Canadian government if they got in power only plan for the life of the current Parliament ?


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Feb 2007)

I imagine a prime minister speaking to the House of Commons:



> The government wants to send troops to help deal with the current crisis in Ruritania. Once the House approves the mission, the government will permit the Canadian Forces to make plans. When those plans are ready, and accepted by the government, we will then inform the House of the composition of the mission, what its members will do, and how long the mission may take. Thank you very much and please vote in favour of the Ruritanian mission.



More from Babbling Brooks:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/02/much-ado.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## 3rd Herd (20 Feb 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Ok....that does it........you're the 3rd  one this week !!



What is the fuss, neither one of us 3rd's has been picking on you.
signed the other 3rd.

Back to the task at hand. I expect to see much more of this in particular the battle over "sound bits". Given the announced poll results this morning that saw Conservatives 36 %, Liberals 27%, NDP 14%, Bloc 23 % and I forget the greens. Further polls in the leadership or who would make a good one: Harper 36 %, Dion 18 %, the others were not mentioned. According to the talking heads or political pundits everyone is waitting for the Quebec elections at the end of March.


----------



## Munxcub (20 Feb 2007)

I saw those results too... Showed the conservatives were up 3%... with a margin of error of +/- 3.1% ;D


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (20 Feb 2007)

How dumb is Dawn Black? Of course we plan...just in case...just like people saving for a rainy day. What a dork! :


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Feb 2007)

>"It is hard to see where civilian oversight is taking place at DND. How can the military plan rotations that Parliament has not approved?" New Democrat MP Dawn Black (New Westminster-Coquitlam) asked in question period.

Another oxygen thief.  How can the military plan for any eventuality that hasn't occurred or been formally approved?

Some people think a little further ahead than the next breath they're about to draw, Dawn.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Feb 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I dont see what the issue is.  It is the military's job to have plans in case the mandate is extended.  What does the NDP expect us to do....make plans at the last minute when it is too late ?
> 
> Idiots  :



Well Layton doesn't appear to do much planning, so it is an alien concept for him and his ilk. The concept of planning for possible events seem to be lost on most people nowdays.


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Feb 2007)

Colin P: 



> Well Layton doesn't appear to do much planning, so it is an alien concept for him and his ilk.



Maybe not:

"Stalin/The Five Year Plans"
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Stalin.htm

Mark
Ottawa


----------

