# The CF After Afghanistan - Missions, Roles & Capabilities



## retiredgrunt45 (13 Mar 2008)

Posted with the usual disclaimers

 Something we all new would happen, but here it is anyway now that it has passed in the house.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080313%2fresp_bill_080313



> Parliamentarians overwhelmingly passed a motion Thursday to extend the military mission in Afghanistan, which means Canadian troops will stay in the war-torn country until at least 2011.
> 
> Passage of the confidence motion was basically assured after the Liberals and Conservatives ironed out a compromise last month. The Conservatives agreed to set a mission end date and focus on reconstruction efforts and training instead of seeking combat.
> 
> ...


----------



## The_Falcon (13 Mar 2008)

Dang you beat me, after I jumped the gun earlier.  Hopefully this means that TF 1-10 will start moving along now.


----------



## GAP (13 Mar 2008)

Did it get extended to Dec 2011 ?


----------



## Franko (13 Mar 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> Did it get extended to Dec 2011 ?



Yes. 

Regards


----------



## WrenchBender (10 Sep 2008)

STEVEN CHASE 

Globe and Mail Update and Canadian Press

September 10, 2008 at 1:24 PM EDT

TORONTO — Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is vowing his government would completely withdraw Canadian troops from Afghanistan in 2011 – a promise that goes beyond a Parliamentary motion this year which merely committed to pull soldiers out of Kandahar province.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080910.welxntories0910/BNStory/Front

I am rather surprized by this

WrenchBender


----------



## Mike Baker (10 Sep 2008)

Here is the CTV link.

I hope this won't affect any military spending, for the things that we _need._


-Deadpan


----------



## McG (10 Sep 2008)

Arbitrary calendar end dates are all around foolish.  If we are not ready to stay until the job is done (the end-state is reached and irreversable), then we may only be wasting time, resources & lives.


----------



## Redeye (10 Sep 2008)

I suspect this is to defuse the issue because Dion said the same thing.  I get the distinct sense that whatever government is in power in 2011 will be smart enough to assess the situation at the time.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (10 Sep 2008)

Harper says 2011 'end date' for Afghanistan mission
'The mission, as we've known it, we intend to end,' PM tells reporters
Last Updated: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 | 11:44 AM ET 
CBC News 

Canada will withdraw the bulk of its military forces in Afghanistan as scheduled in 2011, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper pledged on Wednesday, saying the Afghan government "at some point has to be able to be primarily responsible" for the country's security.

Speaking to reporters at a breakfast briefing in Toronto, Harper said the Canadian public has no appetite to keep soldiers in the war-torn country any longer than the pullout date agreed on by Parliament.

"You have to put an end date on these things," Harper said. 

He added that while Canada's military leaders have not acknowledged it publicly, a decade of war is enough.

"By 2011, we will have been in Kandahar, which is probably the toughest province in the country, for six years," Harper said.

"Not only have we done our bit at that point, I think our goal has to be after six years to see the government of Afghanistan able to carry the lion's share of responsibility for its own security.

"At that point, the mission, as we've known it, we intend to end."

The unusually candid remarks from Harper included the Tory leader acknowledging he cried the first time he had to call the family of a soldier killed in Afghanistan.

Troops would stay 'in some technical capacities'
The Tory government, supported by the Liberals, extended the military mission in Kandahar province to 2011 earlier this year, with a shift to emphasize the mission's priorities to reconstruction and development in the region.

Harper has made past statements in support of a shift in Canada's priorities in Afghanistan, but the prime minister's latest comments appear to show for the first time his acceptance of a troop pullout by the date.

"It's fair to say he was clearer and perhaps more forceful than before on what is going to happen in 2011," the CBC's Paul Hunter reported from the Harper campaign.

While there may be a few Canadian soldiers who stay on after 2011 as advisers, the bulk of the troops will be home by then, Harper said.

"I don't want to say we won't have a single troop there, because obviously we would aid in some technical capacities," he said. 

Dion: Harper 'ambiguous' with allies
Speaking to reporters in Ontario on Wednesday, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said Harper's comments show "he knows now that Canadians want to leave in 2011" despite sending mixed messages abroad. 

"He's saying that, but he has been ambiguous with our allies," Dion said during a campaign stop in Walkerton. "We have asked him many times in the House, 'Did you say that to them?'"

Dion added the only way for Canadians to ensure the government "will say to the world the mission will end in June 2011 is to vote Liberal."

The prime minister's assurances come as the death toll for Canadians in Afghanistan since troops deployed there in 2002 approaches 100. One Canadian diplomat has also died in the mission.

Taliban insurgents have stepped up their attacks in Afghanistan in the last month, in what they claim is an attempt to influence Canada's federal election.

With files from the Canadian Press


----------



## Teeps74 (10 Sep 2008)

At the end of the day, if we leave before the job is done, we will just have to go back... In 5 years? 10? 

Can we get the job done between now and 2011? 

That is one big fricken hill to climb... I honestly do not know.

I do know, that we will do as government and the people of Canada demand, and we will pour everything we have into doing it.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Sep 2008)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Maybe we can go to Darfur! Oh wait....we're not allowed in Darfur.



This is where I look at the Loonie Left and shake my head.  They want us out of Afghanistan, but wonder why we aren't in Darfur, or one or more of a dozen other places in Africa or the Far East as Peacekeepers.  Do these people have even the slightest clue of how many people make up the CF and what our capabilities are?  Silly question.  Of course they don't.


----------



## forcerecon85 (10 Sep 2008)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I get the distinct sense that whatever government is in power in 2011 will be smart enough to assess the situation at the time.


I really hope so. If the job is done by 2011, awesome. If not I hope some sort of loop-hole can be found allowing getting the job done. I'd hate for it all to be in vain.


----------



## belka (10 Sep 2008)

forcerecon85 said:
			
		

> I really hope so. If the job is done by 2011, awesome. If not I hope some sort of loop-hole can be found allowing getting the job done. I'd hate for it all to be in vain.



Define "getting the job done". If it means eliminating the Taliban then we will be there for decades.


----------



## Mike Baker (10 Sep 2008)

NINJA said:
			
		

> Define "getting the job done". If it means eliminating the Taliban then we will be there for decades.


I agree. The Taliban may be people who are our enemy, but it is also an ideology.

The enemy can be defeated, but an ideology, that's a whole new ball game.


-Deadpan


----------



## blacktriangle (10 Sep 2008)

Come on, let's not act like we all didn't see this coming... 

Edit to add: Even if it we're possible to "get the job done" we as a nation do not have the stomach or will to follow through. That's just the way it is.


----------



## observor 69 (10 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This is where I look at the Loonie Left and shake my head.  They want us out of Afghanistan, but wonder why we aren't in Darfur, or one or more of a dozen other places in Africa or the Far East as Peacekeepers.  Do these people have even the slightest clue of how many people make up the CF and what our capabilities are?  Silly question.  Of course they don't.



"Loonie left"  ??

Public support for Afghan mission lowest ever: poll
Last Updated: Friday, September 5, 2008 | 7:50 PM ET Comments272Recommend80
CBC News
The number of Canadians who disapprove of the country's military action in Afghanistan is at its highest point since 2002, according to the results of a new poll sponsored by CBC News.

The survey, conducted by Environics between Friday and Tuesday, found that 34 per cent of respondents "strongly disapprove" of Canada's participation in military action in Afghanistan, while 22 per cent "somewhat disapprove," making a total of 56 per cent.

By comparison, 41 per cent of respondents were in favour of military action, with 14 per cent saying they "strongly approve" and 27 per cent "somewhat approve."

The latest figures stand in contrast to previous responses to the same survey question, posed in March 2008, where 54 per cent of respondents said they disapproved and 44 per cent said the opposite.

The March numbers had represented the highest level of disapproval since polling began in 2002, the same year Canada launched its military mission in Afghanistan.

Do you strongly approve or somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of Canada’s participation in military action in Afghanistan?

Answer	%
Strongly approve

14

Somewhat approve

27

Somewhat disapprove

22

Strongly disapprove

34

Don't know/No answer

3

"Overall, the level of disapproval of our involvement is at its highest point that we've seen in our tracking, and support is at its lowest," Donna Dasko, senior vice-president of Environics Research Group, told CBC News on Friday.

"So we can see the public is clearly, at this point, leaning against the mission."

A total of 2,505 people from across the country were surveyed by telephone for the latest Environics poll. It is considered accurate to within plus or minus two percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Also down is the number of Canadians who think the Canadian mission in Afghanistan is likely to be successful.

Only 28 per cent of respondents said they think the Canadian mission in Afghanistan is likely to be successful, compared with 34 per cent who responded affirmatively during a November 2006 poll.

The current number of Canadians who said the mission wasn't likely to be successful was 65 per cent, compared with 58 per cent in the 2006 poll. In both instances, seven per cent of people said they did not know.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/poll-afghan.html


----------



## axeman (10 Sep 2008)

as a person who has been there , Ill be glad when we are not needed there but the timing of the end ops announcement is suspect. my 2 cents


----------



## blacktriangle (10 Sep 2008)

So does anyone think the CF will go back to the peacekeeping attitude/low funding ways of the past? Will we be forced to by our political masters, with afghanistan being chalked up nothing more then a momentary lapse in the quiet disarming of our nation? I have never voted before, anyone that's been around the block care to predict? GW?


----------



## Monsoon (10 Sep 2008)

I'm surprised no one's actually picked up on the fact that Harper didn't say "the CF will be withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2011". What he said was "the mission *as we know it* will end." That could mean anything from a deployment to a quieter region, to the existing commitment plus a whole lot more development aid. Words are being put into his mouth so that he will have to correct them and be made to look bad. I think it's safe to say that the Globe is throwing everything they've got towards taking down the Conservatives.


----------



## TN2IC (10 Sep 2008)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> What he said was "the mission *as we know it* will end." That could mean anything from a deployment to a quieter region, to the existing commitment plus a whole lot more development aid.



That is what I'm betting for.


----------



## Armymedic (10 Sep 2008)

Just consider it a tac pause for a yr or so before we go right back in again.


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Sep 2008)

A post at _The Torch_:

Out of Afghanistan 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/09/out-of-afghanistan.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The_Falcon (10 Sep 2008)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I'm surprised no one's actually picked up on the fact that Harper didn't say "the CF will be withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2011". What he said was "the mission *as we know it* will end." That could mean anything from a deployment to a quieter region, to the existing commitment plus a whole lot more development aid. Words are being put into his mouth so that he will have to correct them and be made to look bad. I think it's safe to say that the Globe is throwing everything they've got towards taking down the Conservatives.



I noticed and thought the same thing.  Harper is just trying to get this issue (our afghan commitment) out of the way early in the campaign so it doesn't hang on him like a millstone.  As well as to alay concerns in the event he lands another minority government, and has to do the consensus building all over again.  In the long shot that he lands a Majority, he has set himself up with enough wiggle room that he can say we are staying but now with x role, and y mission name, instead of the current ones, and still say he kept his election promise.


----------



## forcerecon85 (10 Sep 2008)

NINJA said:
			
		

> Define "getting the job done". If it means eliminating the Taliban then we will be there for decades.


 I just meant the goals we have set out to complete by 2011, training the ANA, wiping out polio in the province, fixing that dam(the name escapes me at the moment) and there were a few others. I may still be a civy but I know killing all TB won't end the war


----------



## a_majoor (11 Sep 2008)

The ultimate "getting the job done" wont even _start_ until 2015, when the 6 million children who started going to school in 2005 begin to graduate. Until there is a critical mass of people educated people in Afghanistan, then there will be no reconstruction and reform of Afghanistan from within.

I suspect the ANA can carry much of the security load by 2011, and the field force might be able to be scaled back to mentoring and the occasional "cavalry" role, but that still leaves a four year gap to 2015. Since the fate of Afghanistan and potentially central Asia is at stake, the issue should *not* be decided by partisan political considerations.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Sep 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The ultimate "getting the job done" wont even _start_ until 2015, when the 6 million children who started going to school in 2005 begin to graduate. Until there is a critical mass of people educated people in Afghanistan, then there will be no reconstruction and reform of Afghanistan from within.
> 
> I suspect the ANA can carry much of the security load by 2011, and the field force might be able to be scaled back to mentoring and the occasional "cavalry" role, but that still leaves a four year gap to 2015. Since the fate of Afghanistan and potentially central Asia is at stake, the issue should *not* be decided by partisan political considerations.



Only on this forum have i ever seen the reality of the Afghan war stated so clearly, it is a generational war, this generation must have a critical mass get an useful education to turn the tide, the Taliban are quite aware that education is their true enemy. The West fumbled the ball early on and is paying for it now, also many quiet areas are being ignored, when they should have had major infrastructure improvements taking place.


----------



## dwalter (11 Sep 2008)

I think this is a major problem with western political theorist's predictions of how we can help these countries that "need" western influence. They assume we can march in and change things over night, but as Afghanistan has proven, it isn't a fast process. It might take even more than one generation before the level of educated individuals becomes enough to drastically change the region's attitudes. Also keep in mind all the effort, time, and lives put into the project just within the first 6 years. 

Returning to the article for a moment, one point I was shocked about was Mr. Layton's rebuttal to Mr. Harper's declaration. The NDP leader made comments that the only way to solve the problem in Afghanistan is through negotiation with the Taliban. That statement was rather surprising, and unfortunately idealistic. I am a big fan of diplomacy and negotiation, however both groups need to have a desire to negotiate, and somehow I don't think the Taliban would be convinced to even sit at the table right now.


----------



## gnplummer421 (11 Sep 2008)

I wrote some posts on this topic on the CBC.CA website, and I should have known better. Some of the replies and posts were downright cowardice. It became an exercise in frustration. It appears it is the same posters spewing nonsense on every topic, but the things I read on there just make you shake your head....awful.

Posts like "We are supposed to be there as Peacekeepers" or "we are only there because of the Oil and Bush"  are people really that stupid? 

Has anybody else experienced the frustration on this particuar website? (CBC)

Gnplummer421


----------



## George Wallace (11 Sep 2008)

It seems that the Taliban may have won another Political victory over the West.  We all questioned the Spanish, Italians and other nations when they withdrew troops from Afghanistan after Taliban threats and bombings.  Now we see our own Politicians running with their tails between their legs.  Even many who don't agree with us being in Afghanistan have realized that to pull out now is going to do Afghans no good and probably undo everything we have accomplished to date.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, is a father of a fallen Canadian Soldier's response to Harper's announcement:






*Father of slain soldier upset over Harper's comments*

*The father of a Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan says his son would have died in vain if Canada pulls its troops out of the country before the mission is complete. *

11/09/2008 8:09:20 AM

CTV.ca News Staff 

On Wednesday, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said Canada's military commitment in Afghanistan will end in 2011 as scheduled. 

Jim Davis, whose son Cpl. Paul Davis died when his light armoured vehicle rolled over during a patrol in Kandahar in March 2006, said Thursday he was shocked by Harper's comments. 

"I couldn't believe he would say something so irresponsible as that," Davis told CTV's Canada AM. 

Davis said it would be ideal to have Canadian soldiers home by 2011 but setting a deadline "undermines the work our soldiers are doing and it undermines the mission." 

He said the deadline makes it difficult for Canadian soldiers to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people if they know troops will be gone in two years. 

"I would never want to see another soldier go in harm's way so I can justify my son's death," said Davis. "But at the same time if we pull up stakes and come home when we're not ready to -- when the mission is not complete -- if we did that then my son died in vain." 

Last March, Parliament overwhelmingly passed a motion to extend the military mission in Afghanistan to 2011. 

Harper said Wednesday Canadians have no appetite to keep soldiers in the country past the agreed pullout date. 

He also added that military leaders, although they won't say so publicly, feel that a decade of war is enough. 

"You have to put an end date on these things ... we have to say to the government of Afghanistan that there is an expectation that you are going to be responsible for your own security," Harper said Wednesday. 

Retired Canadian Maj.-Gen. Lew Mackenzie said Thursday he's against setting deadlines but Canada's situation in Afghanistan has a unique context.

"NATO has failed miserably to generate the resources to win this thing," Mackenzie told CTV's Canada AM.

"Canada's more than paid its dues... way more than any other member of the 26 NATO alliance proportionally."

Although the bulk of the troops will be out by 2011, Harper did say there may some Canadian soldiers who stay in the country as advisers.


*LINK in Title.*


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Sep 2008)

gnplummer421 said:
			
		

> I wrote some posts on this topic on the CBC.CA website, and I should have known better. Some of the replies and posts were downright cowardice. It became an exercise in frustration. It appears it is the same posters spewing nonsense on every topic, but the things I read on there just make you shake your head....awful.
> 
> Posts like "We are supposed to be there as Peacekeepers" or "we are only there because of the Oil and Bush"  are people really that stupid?
> 
> ...



It's enough to make someone go postal, sadly the feature attracts the lowest life forms around.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2008)

*I hope* that there might have been just a tiny bit of strategic thought behind the Prime Minister’s announcement – but I also hope I will win the lottery and one of these days I might even buy a ticket!

Prime Minister Harper says he wants to take a different approach (from Chrétien/Martin, presumably) to the world – and not just in military terms either. I hope he does.

Taking a new road, however, does not neutralize the threats that lurk on the old one. We cannot move so quickly, not even in a reverse direction, to escape those threats. In any event, Harper probably doesn’t want to shout “About turn!” and go _face à face_ with the Russians in Eastern Europe. More than likely he wants to go in the same general direction as the current heading, maybe just a few degrees one side or the other of it.

I also think that the strategic calculus is changing, in fact I would go so far as to say that *I know* the strategic calculus is changing because it always does – it’s a bit like climate change in that respect. The change is that new threats to our vital interests in the world are emerging. The old current challenges are not going away, they are not even diminishing very much, they are just being forced to share the stage with new ones.

Three specific ‘new’ issues are highly visible:

1.	China rising – we have a whole other thread on that;

2.	Putin’s Russia – about which we also talk a whole lot; and

3.	The *Bottom Billion* – an idea based on a book of the same name, it is a relatively newly seen threat, not much discussed here, yet.

Of course, the *Al Qaeda and friends* threat remains, as menacing as ever.

Timothy Garton Ash deals with _China Rising, Putin’s Russia_, the remaining _Al Qaeda and friends_ threat and authoritarian capitalism in a comment in today’s _Globe and Mail_. It’s worth a read.

I believe the *Bottom Billion* is a threat to us. This is a change of position for me. I have argued, sometimes quite vociferously, that Canada has no vital interests in Africa and that we should, therefore, just let the place go to hell in its own hand-basket without doing anything beyond some ‘feel good’ humanitarian assistance – at the band-aid level. I still believe we have no vital interests in Africa but that does not mean that we simply ignore Africa. I have two reasons for saying that:

1.	Governments, including ours must respond to the *public will* (however ill-informed that may be – or however ill-informed I may think it is). The public will can be informed, shaped and even led by the _commentariat_. I sense a growing consensus in that _commentariat_ for active intervention – much, much more than just band-aid level humanitarian assistance – in Africa, starting, possibly, with Darfur; and

2.	 I think the Bottom Billion is going to force itself on us – maybe by some direct attacks, more likely just by allowing itself to be used by others.

The Bottom Billion share a number of socio-economic and political attributes:

•	A weak, even _retarded_ political culture. Minimally competent, not even good, government is essential to avoid the litany of problems that follow. Unfortunately minimally competent government is unavailable throughout the Bottom Billion – from *A*fghanistan through *Z*imbabwe;

•	Poverty is a normal by-product of weak political cultures. Now, it may be that we have poor always with us, but poverty breeds ...

•	Despair. And despair breeds ...

•	Radicalism and a sense that almost anything is better than what one has now;

•	Now add Islamic Fundamentalism. Islam is the fastest growing religion – especially in Africa. It offers, as did Christianity 1,000 or 1,500 years ago, simple solutions: “Obey my god’s laws,” say the shamans, “and after your miserable life on this earth ends you will have a heavenly time in paradise.” Since the god’s laws look suspiciously like those already enforces by the prince or sultan or local dictator it’s not a hard choice to make. Islam, *I say again*, is not the problem – but certain radical, fundamentalists, militant sub-sets of Islam are problems, they are dangerous, they are our enemies; and

•	Anti-Westernism is a common by-product of radicalism and Islamic Fundamentalism. People, especially poor, desperate people and even more especially radicals need someone to blame: we’re it!

Now, for Africa, add AIDS to that. In Africa AIDS is an epidemic. A generation is being lost: a generation of teachers, a generation of engineers, a generation of health care providers, a generation of entrepreneurs and, and, and ... a generation of leaders. Africa cannot build minimally competent governments that will pull their countries out of disease, despair and poverty if they have no teachers, no engineers, no entrepreneurs and so on.

I think  we’re heading for Africa – with military forces. Not in 2008, perhaps not in 2009, either – but not too long from now. I think the military/security and humanitarian aid operations in Africa are going to be worse than Afghanistan: more difficult, more dangerous, more bloody – Canadians will kill and Canadian will die.

Maybe Prime Minister Harper understands that the strategic calculus is changing.

Maybe he will want to advance a Chrétien/Martin/Graham idea: the CF should be amongst the “first in” to operations in tough, hard to reach, dangerous places but we should also be amongst the “early out” nations – leaving as soon as the ‘host nation’ and less sophisticated, less militarily capable ‘helper’ nations can do the security/aid jobs well enough.

*Fast in/early out* is a good model for a tough, superbly disciplined, very well trained, properly equipped, logistically capable and strategically mobile military force – like ours.


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Sep 2008)

The CF in Afstan: A modest, middle ground, proposal.

Thinking outside the bun. Why essentially all or nothing? Keep the mission as is or basically bug out? Surely there might be other military possibilities.

Propose to NATO keeping a CF presence at Kandahar/Kandahar . But get out of the ground combat role. Ask other NATO members to take on that mission whilst the CF's role becomes mainly an Air Force one.

Keep Chinooks (helicopters badly needed by ISAF) and UAVs there to assist replacement ISAF ground forces. Plus Hercules and C-17 support as required for ISAF (if it still exists) forces. Plus one or two companies of infantry for whatever ground support is needed. That sort of deployment would also require much smaller numbers for logistics/support and command.

Seems reasonable to me, reduces the risk of Canadian casualties, yet still helps considerably whatever allied ground combat/helping ANA in action forces that might replace the Canadian battle group. Such a mission should not be too politically controversial in Canada. Why not run it up appropriate flagpoles? It would be worthwhile in military terms.

Unless the Canadian mission really is just about diplomacy and domestic politics rather than one based on a judgement about real Canadian national interests that necessitate use, to some extent or another, of the Canadian Forces on still dangerous missions.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Sep 2008)

This topic is being discussed on arrse under the inflamatory heading: Canada Surrenders to Taliban.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=105150.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Sep 2008)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is national affairs columnist Jeffrey Simpson’ view on the topic at hand:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080911.wcosimp12/BNStory/politics/home


> Harper has done our soldiers - and their sacrifices - a disservice
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...



The article ends with a sneak attack on Gen (Ret’d) Rick Hillier – pushing a _party line_ set forth by former Liberal insider Eugene Lang. That ‘new narrative’ is based on a lie and Simpson ought to be smart enough to know that. Simpson does move a bit towards the truth by requiring a former, defeated Liberal government to share the “blame” because it was, indeed, scrambling to “do something,” somewhere to put some immediate meat on the bones of Martin’s “Role of Pride and Influence in the World” proposals. I am comfortable with Stephen Harper sharing the “blame” because it remains quite clear to me that the original HoC resolution (May 2006) to extend the mission (to 2009) was proposed for totally partisan political purposes – to embarrass the Liberals.

But it is fun to watch Simpson twist himself back over, under, around and through his previous (anti-war) positions in order to attack Harper.

He does, however, make one key Constitutional and one sensible, practical point:

•	Constitutionally, “one parliament's decision doesn't necessarily bind another's”; and

•	Practically, “who knows how the situation will evolve between now and 2011.”

If Harper is faced with a different situation he may have to change his mind; he wouldn’t be the first nor will he be the last to break campaign promises, remember Trudeau on wage and price controls, Mulroney on free trade and Chrétien on the GST? As to mind changing: remember Trudeau’s walk in the park with Helmut Schmidt in the mid 1970s? It fundamentally altered the (effective disarmament) plans he had already begun to roll out.

But, I repeat, Afghanistan is not the only threat out there and we ought to have enough (military) eggs to fill more than one (mission) basket. Failing that it may be prudent to declare out fair share “done” and get ready for other, even more difficult conflicts.


----------



## GAP (12 Sep 2008)

I think what the nub of the whole issue revolves around is the letdown of Harper's "Not Cut and Run" statements, then, to get support in Quebec, he does exactly that...

Things may change before 2011, but the disappointment is acute...


----------



## Nemo888 (12 Sep 2008)

Agreed. No one really seems to understand the incredible resolve needed to win a ground war in Asia. I hope they don't try to take the route the Russians did, but forgetting history seems to be the politically expedient route.

"The first step of the exit strategy was to transfer the burden of fighting the mujahideen to the Afghan armed forces, with the aim of preparing them to operate without Soviet help. During this phase, the Soviet contingent was restricted to supporting the DRA forces by providing artillery, air support and technical assistance, though some large-scale operations were still carried out by Soviet troops.

Under Soviet guidance, the DRA armed forces were built up to an official strength of 302,000 in 1986. To minimize the risk of a coup d'état, they were divided into different branches, each modeled on its Soviet counterpart. The ministry of defense forces numbered 132,000, the ministry of interior 70,000 and the ministry of state security (KHAD) 80,000. However, these were theoretical figures: in reality each service was plagued with desertions, the army alone suffering 32,000 per year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan


----------



## Snafu-Bar (12 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> I think what the nub of the whole issue revolves around is the letdown of Harper's "Not Cut and Run" statements, then, to get support in Quebec, he does exactly that...
> 
> Things may change before 2011, but the disappointment is acute...



 What's to say if he gets re-elected to change his mind after winning another term?

I can see him pulling an about face on it quite easily in fact. It was after all a promise to be broken.

Cheers


----------



## aesop081 (12 Sep 2008)

Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> What's to say if he gets re-elected to change his mind after winning another term?



Exactly. In saying "out in 2011", Harper has effectively , IMHO, sealed the issue for the rest of the campaign. We all know how minds change the day after an ellectoral victory right ?


----------



## McG (12 Sep 2008)

I'd prefer no party include deliberate deception/obfuscation as part of their platform.  I understand that situations change & sometimes governments cannot stick to the promises made.  That is quite different than making promises with no intent of execution.  If you don't mean it, then don't say it.


----------



## Proud_Newfoundlander (13 Sep 2008)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> "Loonie left"  ??
> 
> Public support for Afghan mission lowest ever: poll
> Last Updated: Friday, September 5, 2008 | 7:50 PM ET Comments272Recommend80
> ...



Yes, but it is the looney left and isolationist nationalists who have influenced the canadian public (mostly in urban south ontario, as quebec has always been like this). Another note on Quebec, they will always go against intervention, even peacekeeping wasn't an easy sell to large numbers of Quebeckers. Also take into account 1/4 of the population is from Quebec, and 3/4 of them will generally oppose any sort of intervention. Makes the support higher in the rest of canada.


----------



## maniac779 (13 Sep 2008)

While I don't think we should be setting fixed dates on withdrawl from the Afghan conflict, I do wonder how much longer we can sustain the mission as it is right now.

When one thinks of the incredible amount of resources that the mission takes up, it's quickly realized that between the guys who just got off tour, the guys on tour and the guys working up for the next one, the number of people with just one degree of separating from the mission approaches 10% our military.

We all know people who are on their second, third and in more and more cases, fourth tour. I am sure we also know guys who have released because of this kind op tempo... these being the types of people we should be trying to keep at all costs as they have a wealth of operational knowledge and experience, the likes of which have not been seen in our ranks in a long time.

It seems to me that sooner or later we won't have much of a choice but to change our role in the mission so as to enable a sort of regenerative process, akin to a rest day after a hard workout... The rest is required for us to come ahead stronger and more capable.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Sep 2008)

The OPTEMPO wouldnt be quite as bad if the infantry battalions could be brought up to 110% of authorized strength. It all comes down to recruiting and doing what it takes to fill the vacancies money wise. Manning the forces should be a national priority and making pay competitive with civvie street an imperative.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Sep 2008)

T6,

Canada has a tradition over 130 years long of fighting wars on the cheap.  This one will be no exception...


----------



## john10 (17 Sep 2008)

(There wasn't any discussion of this in the main Afghanistan thread and only a smidgen in the 'Taliban momentum' thread so I thought I'd start a new topic)

Last week, Prime Minister Harper announced that the Canadian mission in Afghanistan would end in 2011: "You have to put an end date on these things. We intend to end it."

This language leaves no place to think the mission will continue in some form. And going back on this statement would be politically unthinkable and guarantee an election loss.

Personally, I find this very disheartening. It is basically cutting and running. The mission will come to a term based on an arbitrary withdrawal date rather than a determination that our objectives there have been successfully achieved.


----------



## JimMorrison19 (17 Sep 2008)

From what I've read there are and will continue to be some issues that have yet to be addressed in Afghanistan's social and security systems, but some "conflicts" in doctrine will be there just because of cultural differences between Afghanistan and the nations who are peacekeeping there. I am reminded specifically of the article regarding Afghan police and the exploitation of young boys for sex, although I can't remember where that thread is.  ??? Issues like these certainly need to be dealt with in my mind.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (17 Sep 2008)

Between NOW and 2011 so many things can happen that the line delivered by Harper could have absolutley nothing to do with Afghanistan by then. Who knows tomorrow we could have a nuclear war on our hands...does it matter what happens in 2011 then?

 Worry about tomorrow when it gets here, concentrate on today while you have the chance to do something about things that matter tomorrow. Forget yesterday, it's gone and nothing you do will change anything that happened.

 Cheers.


----------



## Celticgirl (17 Sep 2008)

He also said: "At that point, the mission, *as we've known it*, we intend to end."

That's fairly open to interpretation, I think, and it could be the loophole he needs to extend the mission's non-combat roles.




			
				Snafu-Bar said:
			
		

> Worry about tomorrow when it gets here, concentrate on today while you have the chance to do something about things that matter tomorrow. Forget yesterday, it's gone and nothing you do will change anything that happened.



Singing: _Don't stop thinking about tomorrow, don't stop, it'll soon be here...yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone...._

Sorry, I couldn't help myself after reading that.


----------



## WannaBeFlyer (17 Sep 2008)

I wonder what will happen when this report is released. Thus far, the polls have suggested the Blue machine was going to steam roll everyone else...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/indepth/fed_election/s/capress/080917/national/fedelxn_main

Harper says Yes to release of Afghan war cost report 
1 hour, 42 minutes ago



By Martin O'Hanlon, The Canadian Press


OTTAWA - Stephen Harper has given his blessing to the release of a report on the cost of the Afghan war - a document that could sway Conservative fortunes in the vital electoral battleground of Quebec, where the mission is highly unpopular. 

Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page has tallied the full cost of the mission - past and future - and said he would like to release it. But he was worried about interfering with the federal election and asked for all-party consent. All opposition parties gave their blessing Tuesday, and the prime minister agreed Wednesday. 


The minority Conservative government has estimated the cost of the six-year mission at under $8 billion. If the new figures are much higher, it could be bad news for Harper. 
Polls have repeatedly shown that Canadians are lukewarm to the mission, especially in Quebec, where Harper must make gains to have any chance of winning his coveted majority. And critics suggest cost overruns in the Afghan mission could erase the government's shrinking surplus and put the country into deficit, especially given the economic slowdown. The Afghan mission has been a heavy burden for Canada with 97 soldiers and one diplomat killed. Canada has more than 2,000 personnel based in the dangerous Kandahar region. 


The awkward timing of the Afghan report came as Harper made his most direct pitch yet for a majority government. He said Tuesday that he needs a "strong mandate" to fight crime and preserve law and order. He also said the country will need a forceful government to weather economic uncertainty. 


Poll results in the first week of the election campaign suggested the Tories were in majority territory. But they have since slipped, as some voters leery of a Conservative majority apparently had second thoughts. The latest Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll suggests the Liberals are gaining on the Conservatives, whose lead has shrunk to 10 points from 15 last week. The survey put the Conservatives at 38 per cent support and the Liberals at 28. 

All the party leaders were out on the hustings again Wednesday. 
Dion was first out of the campaign blocks with a $600-million promise to boost support for students and research. 
In a speech at the University of Western Ontario, Dion said Canada's productivity and economic success depend on investments in research and development. 
He said a Liberal government would increase education grants and bursaries, and guarantee low-interest loans. 

Layton was next with a multibillion-dollar national child-care plan. He promised to create 150,000 daycare spaces in the first year of an NDP government, at a cost of $1.4 billion - on top of current programs. 
More money and spaces would be created in future years as funding permits, he said in Toronto. 

Harper was in Welland, Ont., promising tough new measures aimed at discouraging access to tobacco and marketing to children. 
He said his government would ban the use of flavours and additives, like bubble gum and cotton candy flavouring. He would also prohibit tobacco advertising on Internet sites and in publications that appeal to youth. 

Green Leader Elizabeth May was in Halifax releasing her party's full platform, led by tax breaks for low-income earners and for industries that cut carbon emissions. 
Like the Liberals, the Green are also proposing to cut income taxes and raise taxes on fossil fuels. 

May also promised to: 

-Hike the GST by one percentage point to help municipalities pay for improvements to their crumbling infrastructure and public transit. 

-Allow income splitting. 

-Reduce contributions by employers to Employment Insurance and the Canada Pension Plan.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> *I hope* that there might have been just a tiny bit of strategic thought behind the Prime Minister’s announcement ...
> ...
> I believe the *Bottom Billion* is a threat to us. This is a change of position for me. I have argued, sometimes quite vociferously, that Canada has no vital interests in Africa and that we should, therefore, just let the place go to hell in its own hand-basket without doing anything beyond some ‘feel good’ humanitarian assistance – at the band-aid level. I still believe we have no vital interests in Africa but that does not mean that we simply ignore Africa. I have two reasons for saying that:
> 
> ...




I mentioned that Africa is in crisis. It is now worsening as the ‘beacon’ for Black Africa unravels.

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

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080923.wsapolitics0923/BNStory/International/home


> SA cabinet members quit over Mbeki's ousting
> 
> STEPHANIE NOLEN
> 
> ...



The ANC, in replacing Mbeki as leader and, therefore, as President, is doing the right thing, but this – less stability and leadership from South Africa – is the last thing Africa needs right now.


----------



## GAP (23 Sep 2008)

I can see SA, that inherited it's structure, declining dramatically over the next decade, almost to the level of Rhodesia.....Aparthate aside, this was once the jewel of Africa, an efficient government that functioned, and functioned very well for Africa, now it is degenerating into the Blacks squabbling among themselves....


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Sep 2008)

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

*Defence Minister talks campus military recruitment, student debt*
Peter MacKay seeks re-election against Green Party leader in St. FX riding
Danielle Webb, The Muse (Memorial University student paper), 24 Sept 08
Article link

Highlights on AFG (bolding mine):



> ....  MacKay believes a lot of Canadians simply misunderstand the various aspects of the role Canada is playing in Afghanistan.
> 
> He was quick to note the “very democratic vote” to extend the Afghanistan mission until February 2011.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Nov 2008)

Canada won't rethink 2011 Afghanistan pullout after Obama win: Cannon
Last Updated: Wednesday, November 5, 2008 | 8:46 PM ET CBC News 
The election of a new U.S. president who has vowed to deploy thousands more troops into Afghanistan won't cause Canada to reconsider its decision to pull out of the country by 2011, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Wednesday. 

The United States already has 36,000 troops in Afghanistan, and Barack Obama promised during his campaign for the presidency to send up to 12,000 more while scaling down operations in Iraq.

But Cannon said Obama's election would have no impact on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to withdraw Canadian forces from the country.

"We welcome the renewed focus on Afghanistan on behalf of the president-elect," Cannon said. "The U.S. interest won't change our opinion or intention to withdraw our forces in 2011." 

Cannon, who took over the Foreign Affairs portfolio from retiring Conservative MP David Emerson, also insisted that Canadian soldiers would not be redeployed away from the volatile Kandahar province to safer parts of the country after the date.

Harper made his own view explicitly clear during the recent federal election, when he said it was time to put an end date on Canada's military commitment.

Karzai urges halting air strikes
Obama, the Democratic candidate, opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 from the beginning, saying it distracted the focus and critically needed military resources away from the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Following Obama's election victory Tuesday night, Afghan President Hamid Karzai demanded that the newly-elected leader change U.S. tactics to reduce the number of civilian casualties, particularly from air strikes in recent months.

It came as villagers said U.S. warplanes killed 37 people — nearly all of them women and children — during a cat-and-mouse hunt for militants.

"We cannot win the fight against terrorism with air strikes," President Hamid Karzai said. "This is my first demand of the new president of the United States — to put an end to civilian casualties."

The alleged strikes came only three months after the Afghan government concluded that a U.S. operation killed some 90 civilians in western Afghanistan. After initially denying any civilians had died in that attack, a U.S. report ultimately concluded that 33 were killed.

Canada has about 2,500 troops stationed in Afghanistan, mostly in Kandahar. Since 2002, 98 Canadians have died in Afghanistan.

With files from the Canadian Press


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Nov 2008)

When the "One" comes to Canada and tells us to stay and fight, I will enjoy watching Layton and whoever leads the remains of the Liberals squirming in their seats, they will try to blame Bush, but I suspect that it will fall on deaf ears. Obama will need Canada to stay for the same reasons Bush did. I so do love the irony of it all.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Nov 2008)

There are plenty of other countries in the world in need of military assistance / intervention... the Army shouldn't be getting out the lawn chairs, sunglasses and lemonade in preparation for post-2011...


----------



## Sub_Guy (6 Nov 2008)

I was just talking about this yesterday, it will be interesting to see how the Canadian public reacts when the guy they all seem to love comes to Canada and asks us to stay there longer.


----------



## gun runner (6 Nov 2008)

"There are plenty of other countries in the world in need of military assistance / intervention... the Army shouldn't be getting out the lawn chairs, sunglasses and lemonade in preparation for post-2011..." 

Ok, well then Dapaterson, where do you suspect the next big deployment will be? Somalia again? After all, they have no army. And the pirates are running amok on the high seas, in the face of the international community. It should be interesting to see where we will go. Ubique


----------



## dapaterson (6 Nov 2008)

Where?

Start in the Sudan.  Move to the Congo.  Zimbabwe is facing starvation and collapse.  Keep an eye on parts of South America, especialy if states reliant on high oil prices face internal instability with prices falling to $60 or less per barrel.

That's off the top of my head, without any detailed examination of all the world.  I'm sure people can come up with other plausible scenarios.

Oh, and keep in mind we have a minority government, still looking to broaden its base - so some pandering to the UN-philes would not be entirely surprising.


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Nov 2008)

In my somewhat cynical opinion, in order for us to withdraw gracefully from Afghanistan, we will have to be willing to spend blood and treasure somewhere else. The government may be able to negotiate a short pause, but the next place - wherever it is - is probably going to make the sand box look good.

Where is that apt to be? Dapaterson has come up with a few choice places. I could think of a couple more. Who knows? We might as fall back on the Old Sweat geopolitical indicator; if its name ends with a vowel, watch out.


----------



## Greymatters (6 Nov 2008)

gun runner said:
			
		

> "There are plenty of other countries in the world in need of military assistance / intervention... the Army shouldn't be getting out the lawn chairs, sunglasses and lemonade in preparation for post-2011..."
> 
> Ok, well then Dapaterson, where do you suspect the next big deployment will be? Somalia again? After all, they have no army. And the pirates are running amok on the high seas, in the face of the international community. It should be interesting to see where we will go. Ubique



That's a hard question for anyone to answer.  Natural disasters, industrial accidents, airplane crashes, civil wars, terrorists, none of the people involved in these phone us up and say "Hey, is this NDCC?  Just wanted to say hi, oh, and by the way we're having this thing in a couple of months, would you mind showing up...?"

But without doubt, since 1990 there has always been something, and there always will be something, to keep our troops busy both domestically and internationally...

_Edit - oops, excess words, fixed it..._


----------



## Danjanou (6 Nov 2008)

gun runner said:
			
		

> ...Ok, well then Dapaterson, where do you suspect the next big deployment will be? Somalia again? After all, they have no army. And the pirates are running amok on the high seas, in the face of the international community. It should be interesting to see where we will go. Ubique



I’m with DAP, ( and damn glad I’m too old fat and sick to be called back in)

Sudan- but not as fuzzy hug blue beret wearing teddy bear handing out types ala Jack wants. I think any NATO/UN Peace enforcement force will probably have to fight their way in and for those who don’t thing that will be tough google map the place especially the rail line to the coast.

Zimbabwe- long overdue and as we were part of the Lancaster House Peace Process that put Uncle Bob in over the moderate during the second round of free and fair elections (he declared the first round illegal because he didn’t win) we can add the it was our fault guilt line along with it is a Commonwealth country bit.

Congo/Zaire, unless there’s another Mad Mike Hoare floating around this one could make Afghanistan look like Cyprus. Read the history of conflicts in this place from the 1960s on. 

Any other assorted sub Saharan Afrcian Republic could be added to the list as many are simmering now, Kenya, South Africa et cetera et cetera.

Closer to home we have that long running sore Haiti, where I’m sure we’ll be again and again and again. Colombia is close to collapse as is Venezuela (see DAPs comments re oil), Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala are all possibles as is Belize ( invasion from Guatemala while the Brits are busy elsewhere). Finally don’t forget Cuba, Fidel is on life support, Raoul is no financial genius, (actually strike the financial part form that), and the place exists on tourist dollars and euros now. With a world wide economic downturn underway how many dropped their week in the sun from the household budget? 

Best case scenario would be a single op in any of these places to go in and get our locals out like in Lebanon a few years back. Worst six months at a Latin American All inclusive where the activities may not be beach volleyball. Be real hard to back out of any ops in this part of the world it being our hemisphere and all.

Back in the near east, even exiting from Afghanistan for whatever reason still leaves Iran, Pakistan, Syria et cetera et cetera.

Switching to Asia we have Indonesia, Burma, Southern Philippines and Radical Islamic uprising in Southern Thailand now.

Actually about the only place I can’t foresee us (sorry you lot) possibly being deployed in the next 1-2 decades is Antarctica and that’s probably a good thing as someone said our winter Warfare skills are a tad rusty these days.


----------



## CougarKing (6 Nov 2008)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> *Finally don’t forget Cuba, Fidel is on life support, Raoul is no financial genius, (actually strike the financial part form that), and the place exists on tourist dollars and euros now. With a world wide economic downturn underway how many dropped their week in the sun from the household budget? *



Did you not read that thread about that huge oil discovery in Cuba? So you think that will have no effect?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/80646.0.html


----------



## George Wallace (6 Nov 2008)

Although there really isn't much in Afghanistan itself besides one of the largest Copper deposits in the world, it still is in the center of the "Silk Route" which means that several world powers are very interested in controlling it.  Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran are all interested in controlling the route.  The US is also interested in who controls the route.  

Consider the consequences to Russia, Iran, China or Pakistan should one of them gain control of the region, over the others.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Nov 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Where is that apt to be? Dapaterson has come up with a few choice places. I could think of a couple more. Who knows? We might as fall back on the Old Sweat geopolitical indicator; if its name ends with a vowel, watch out.



So, Newfoundland and Labrador are safe, but watch out for Toronto... or at least keep your shovel handy...


----------



## rampage800 (6 Nov 2008)

I have a feeling there'll probably be more than a few Canadians in Afghanistan long past 2011. I see the BG coming out but almost every rotation I think the OMLT grows substantially, I wouldn't be suprised to see the strength of that organization around the 500+ mark come 2011 with a mandate for another 5 years.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Nov 2008)

The OMLT problem is that it's senior personnel heavy; so fielding an OMLT of 100 or so sucks the leadership out of a full Bn or so.  It's why strength numbers aren't always representative of the pressure; it's the particular ranks and trades that may cause stresses.


----------



## Danjanou (6 Nov 2008)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Did you not read that thread about that huge oil discovery in Cuba? So you think that will have no effect?
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/80646.0.html



Yeah it will. It increases the chances that the whole Cuban ithing will go south and possibly sooner. As noted in that thread if Fidel oops I mean Rauol lets the PRC and/or Chavez in to help "develop" things, then odds are you guys will be there as part of NATO/UN /OAS whatever eventually, either before, after, or during a typical Cubano "election." That BTW is when all the locals grab their rifles and head up into the mountains. Whoever comes down alive is the new Government, they've done it -5 times in the past 100+ years IIRC.

When you're going in watch out for the reefs at the Bay of Pigs they have some wicked coral, and see if you can grab me a couple of boxes of Habanos will ya, my humidor is a little low. I'll give you the name of my guy in Barrio Chino. 8)


----------



## Danjanou (6 Nov 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, Newfoundland and Labrador are safe, but watch out for Toronto... or at least keep your shovel handy...



I'll put the kettle on, or should I keep the beer cold? 8)


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Nov 2008)

I agree with there being no shortage of places that need and will need help - pick a fire, any fire, to put out (courtesy of the International Crisis Group):


> October 2008 TRENDS
> 
> Deteriorated Situations
> Democratic Republic of Congo, India (non-Kashmir), North Caucasus (non-Chechnya), Peru, Somaliland (Somalia), Thailand
> ...



This from the party platform commitment:


> Canada's military mission in Afghanistan will cease by the end of 2011.


suggests no CF soldiers there, period.

On the other hand, these  PM quotes (presuming they're accurately quoted, of course)....


> Link to CTV.ca, 10 Sept 08:  "You have to put an end date on these things ... we have to say to the government of Afghanistan that there is an expectation that you are going to be responsible for your own security"





> Link to _Edmonton Journal_, 11 Sept 08:  "I don't want to say we won't have a single troop there, because obviously, we would aid in some technical capacities. But, at that point, the mission as we've known it, we intend to end."





> Link to Agence France-Presse, 21 Feb 08:  "Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, completing redeployment from the south by December of that year"



leave the potential for....


			
				rampage800 said:
			
		

> I have a feeling there'll probably be more than a few Canadians in Afghanistan long past 2011. I see the BG coming out but almost every rotation I think the OMLT grows substantially, I wouldn't be suprised to see the strength of that organization around the 500+ mark come 2011 with a mandate for another 5 years.


or any other mission that's different enough from the current mission.

Also, a lot can change between now and 2011 in AFG, in any of the above-listed sore spots, or in Canada's political situation with a (still) minority gov't.


----------



## regulator12 (7 Nov 2008)

Our military is hurting and could use a break in Afghanistan. I hope the pull out in 2011 happens. We are stretched out, equipment shortages and personal being stressed out. We need to let others take over and give us a break before we break ourselves.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (10 Nov 2008)

regulator12 said:
			
		

> Our military is hurting and could use a break in Afghanistan. I hope the pull out in 2011 happens. We are stretched out, equipment shortages and personal being stressed out. We need to let others take over and give us a break before we break ourselves.



I have to agree. Other than the political and moralist arguments against the mission in Afghanistan, I believe the Canadian Forces has very strongly completed its commitment to NATO with regards to ISAF and with our sacrifice and amazing job there I don't think anyone can argue against the Canadian Forces, and the Canadian public having a break from Afghanistan. 

Plus, like others have said it allows us to consider other deployments where we are strongly needed. I however disagree with Sudan to some extent. Sudan currently is undertaking a African Union contingent and I believe before we start sending Western deployments there we need to see if this local authority can bring peace to the region. Though we should definitely support it as much as possible (technical support such as advisors etc.). 

-C/D


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Mar 2009)

Tidbits of General Leslie's testimony to the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence, from the Canadian Press,


> ...."In the mid-term, and beginning in July 2011, we will have to explore the possibility of taking a short operational break, that is well-organized and synchronized, of at least one year," he said ....



and the _Toronto Star_


> ....Despite the pause, Leslie said the army would still be ready to respond to emergencies if called on.  "We will always be prepared to carry out our various national and international tasks," he told the Senate defence committee....



He also seems (rightly) unhappy about waiting for the newest tanks - from the _Globe & Mail_


> .... Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, Chief of the Land Staff, said he can not explain why he is still waiting for the badly needed tanks. "Quite frankly, it's taking an awfully long time," Gen. Leslie told the Senate committee on national security and defence. "They bought 100 Leopard 2s. Forty are still in Europe and 40 are currently in Montreal and they've been in Montreal since I believe November of last year. And I do not yet have my hands on those Leopard 2s with which to train our soldiers." ....


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (10 Mar 2009)

We need a lot longer operational pause than 1 year... with Bosnia, the army has been tasked since the early 90's non-stop... As a result, the ability to conduct Bde and above level operations is almost nil.  If we jump into another major operation before consolidating all we're going to do is lose mroe experienced people who are tired of deploying and lose more of our ability to conduct symetrical operations.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Mar 2009)

Well we can put it on paper and go through the motions but I really don't see it happening. Kinda like the current Operational Tempo. Looked really good. Didn't work out very well.


----------



## onecat (10 Mar 2009)

I was just watching the discovery channel special on combat school and the Canadian forces in Afghanistan. Which has been good so far, but it me thinking what is going to happen to the Forces after 2011 and their a Liberal government in power?  The Liberals have a very poor record when it comes to giving money to the Forces and their main goal always seem to be reducing the combat capabilities of the Forces.  After 2011 the Cf is going to have buy almost new kits, from LAV's, G-wagons, to small arms and more.  So my question is what are the chances of the Forces keeping the same  level of combat capabilities it has now.  My feeling is it will be reduced.  Bu how much it's hard to say. But the economy declining and Liberal party support in the anti military movement, it's hard to see the Forces coming out a new Liberal government for the better. what do you guys think.


----------



## 241 (11 Mar 2009)

Likely if the Liberals are in power (Yuk) they will sell all this nice kit we have got and are getting and invest in a lot of Blue Berets and greeting cards in foreign languages beacause after all we are just the Liberal Parties "Peacekeeping Force" right??


----------



## McG (20 Mar 2009)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> We need a lot longer operational pause than 1 year... with Bosnia, the army has been tasked since the early 90's non-stop...


We did drop tempo quite a bit for the few years while Op ATHENA was up in Kabul. 



> *Weak on defence*
> Vancouver Sun
> 18 Mar 09
> 
> ...


The first time I heard suggestion of a 2011/2012 operational pause was in an article written by retired general Lewis Mckenzie.  It seemed odd to me at the time.  Our peak demand is 2010 when we have to continue operations in Afghanistan, continue force generating for Afghanistan, and provide support to the Olympics (Op PODIUM).  Surely, I though, if we can make it to the far side of that spike demand then we can carry on meeting whatever commitment is set in Afghanistan for 2012 & beyond.

Hearing this now from the person best informed to comment causes me to wonder.  Are we breaking ourselves just to reach the finish line?  Where does that leave us in the event of the unexpected in 2011/12, or is a break the only way to leave us the ability to meet the unexpected in that time window?


----------



## TrooperHibbs (11 Apr 2010)

What do you think the deployment opportunities will be come 2011?
Or perhaps, september 2010 for deployment in 2011?
The way I look at it is there still needs to be some kind of secutiry element in place for pull-out....
Or, is 2010 the last kick at the can?


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Apr 2010)

Start and end of a _Torch post_, with further links:

Army could handle new foreign deployment in 2012  
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/army-could-handle-new-foreign.html  



> It almost seems as if some in the Army want a new mission soonest, whether or not national interest as decided by the government requires it. At least the 2012 date should rule out any significant number of troops for a Congo deployment, though presumably a headquarters element would be possible (but why choose to command that operation? see towards end at immediately preceding link) According to the chief of staff for land operations...
> http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/army-04-12-2010
> 
> ...I don't think the public will be ready for any major foreign "adventure"--certainly not a combat one--for a fair while. I'm rather bemused by the Army leadership's eagerness.


 
Mark  
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Apr 2010)

From a _Torch_ post:

CF drumming up a Congo mission?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/cf-drumming-up-congo-mission.html  



> ...one really has to furiously wonder. Given the strict clampdown this government has imposed on, er, communications, why did this Lt.-Col. effectively advocate a CF Congo mission?..
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/Somnia/article1538440/
> 
> But, heck, it's an honest-to-God UN-run mission (though not "traditional peacekeeping" since it's under Chapter VII of the UN Charter [see 8. here],
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Dog Walker (19 Apr 2010)

UN Peacekeeping
Brian Stewart
Are we really thinking of taking on another mission?
Last Updated: Thursday, April 15, 2010 | 7:40 AM ET 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/14/f-vp-stewart.html

One of the most intriguing aspects of being Canadian is our national reverence for UN peacekeeping, an ideal that exists almost entirely now in our imagination.

Polls show most Canadians now insist that combat operations end with our term in Afghanistan in 2011 and want our high-quality army to be limited to peacekeeping only.

In short, we appear to want our military restricted to the kind of duties first envisaged by former prime minister Lester Pearson in the 1950s and then celebrated through the decades by government publicity posters of blue-helmeted soldiers protecting women and children from violence and anarchy.

The hard reality, of course, is often very different, as most soldiers, humanitarian workers and foreign correspondents know only too well.

Yes, some peace missions have worked — where there is an actual peace that's agreed upon by the parties involved.

But history suggests there are few types of military mission more likely to end in failure, frustration and searing shame than what passes for peacekeeping today.

Think of Rwanda, Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, the Balkans, Sierra Leone and Haiti, among many examples.

Protecting civilians
Since Pearson's time, hundreds of thousands of civilians have been slaughtered while a UN peacekeeping mission stood idly by, either crippled by UN bureaucracy, national caveats against taking risk, confusion over mandates, or simple incompetence and even indifference.

Around the world, millions of people have come to think of UN peacekeeping missions not as saviours but too often as hollow promises of protection that vanish in a crisis.

This is why anyone thinking of a new Canadian peacekeeping mission — as Ottawa seems to be doing as it contemplates what to do with our military post-Afghanistan — should carefully read the details of an independent study commissioned by the UN's own Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Affairs department.

The title may be bland "Protecting Civilians in the Context of UN Peacekeeping Operations." But the substance makes for chilling reading.

The bottom line: A decade ago, a chastened UN, reacting to past failures, set out to make "protection of civilians in armed conflict" a priority mandate, but still hasn't found the collective will, means or strategy to bring this about.

The reality, the report finds, is that too often peacekeeping troops are ill-trained, ill-equipped, and even ill-informed about their roles and the country they're supposed to help.

What's more, they're usually tightly restricted by their own nations as to what risks they can run to protect the civilians they are pledged to look out for. Too often, it turns out, the answer is "no risk."

Almost incredibly, the study finds that even UN commanders in the field "often serve without a clear understanding of what protection of civilian mandates mean, how it is addressed and whether it is a priority."

Whether it is a priority? Did Rwanda and Srebenica fail to even register?

Wording so vague
Let's be clear. The kind of "threats to civilians" we're talking about cover almost every horror the human mind is capable off: mass rape of women by armed gangs, child sex slavery, the punitive amputation of limbs, and even massacres of whole communities.

In the kind of failed states we are looking at, armed factions build terror upon terror to further their aims.

But the main fault lies not just in the field but right at UN headquarters itself.

The study finds that the UN Security Council often fails to even consider protection of civilians when it orders up a blue-helmet mission. The wording of mandates is so vague that civilian well-being just falls through the slats.

Back in the mid-1990s, when then Canadian general Romeo Dallaire was informed by Ottawa that he had been picked to head the Rwanda peacekeeping mission, he had no idea where the country was in Africa and had to go out and buy his own map.

One wonders if anything has changed.

Nearly 15 years later, the report still finds serious "gaps" at the top of the UN in setting out a mission's goals. These lead, it says, to "the extremely limited training that senior mission leaders and uniformed personnel receive on protection of civilians prior to deployment."

Specific guidelines
The UN, of course, is not a government and member nations are responsible for its failings.

This study suggests nations may yet reform peacekeeping at the top, but I've been reading upbeat UN reports long enough to want evidence before I believe it.

So should our government.

Canada, which is trying to win a long-coveted permanent seat on the Security Council, is rumoured to be courting votes among member nations by dropping suggestions in New York that it might consider a future peacekeeping mission.

A big mission to Haiti would make sense. Canada has a peacekeeping history there and, as a top aid donor, would have influence on ensuring a civilian-protection mandate.

But some other possible missions — one to the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo has been rumoured — should only be considered with extreme caution.

Jumping from Afghanistan to the Congo would truly be a leap from the frying pan into the fire.

If we do take this on, Canada's military leaders should first establish, at the very least, that any peacekeeping mission will have clear guidelines to be honoured in the field, at UN headquarters and by Ottawa itself.

That involves ensuring proper arms and support, and having significant military backup in case of emergencies.

What's more, officers should insist on establishing very clear guidelines for the serious use of force, the so-called rules of engagement, to advance the mandate of the mission.

No Canadian troops should ever again have to stand by helplessly while civilians are massacred before their eyes, as was the case in Rwanda, and even on occasion in the former Yugoslavia.

And Canada should not lend its name to any mission that only promises to protect the innocent, but then fails to act when courage is required.


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Apr 2010)

Another piece worth the read in, gasp, the _Toronto Star_:

Why trade Kandahar for Kinshasa?
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/columns/article/797728--cohn-why-trade-kandahar-for-kinshasa



> ...Canada's military and political circles are abuzz about what to do with our battle-hardened soldiers, who by next year will be all kitted up with nowhere to go. With a rapidly approaching mid-2011 deadline set by Parliament to start pulling out of Afghanistan, an exit strategy is slowly firming up while a redeployment strategy would move some of those troops to Congo...
> 
> We are not just weary of the fight, but leery of the moral ambiguities: our wavering Afghan allies, the widespread torture, and the loss of 142 soldiers so far. But why hopscotch from Afghanistan's minefields to Congo's killing fields where similar moral quagmires await us?
> 
> ...



Quite. Though I'm sure the calculation is very few Canadian dead indeed in any Congo effort.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Apr 2010)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> I'm sure the calculation is very few Canadian dead indeed in any Congo effort.


Let's hope the rebel factions don't want to take over a major airport or something ....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100405/wl_africa_afp/drcongounrestarmyun_20100405121314
....*again.*


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Apr 2010)

A UN Congo mission for the CF? And local realities--why even bother thinking about it?  From _The Economist_ (quotes out of sequence): 
http://www.economist.com/world/middle-east/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15912838



> ...Congo’s rulers say they are fed up with being castigated by foreigners and want to be accorded the dignity due to a sovereign country rather than accept the humiliation of what they say amounts to an indefinite international “trusteeship”. So the government says the UN’s peacekeepers should start leaving in June, when the country is to mark the 50th anniversary of its independence from Belgium. All UN troops, says the government, should be gone by the middle of next year, before Congo’s next scheduled elections.
> 
> The UN Security Council, which oversees peacekeeping, may bow to some of the government’s demands. The latest plan is to withdraw some 2,000 peacekeepers from about a third of the country’s provinces, including Équateur, by the end of June and to remove the whole lot by August next year—after the hoped-for election. The Security Council is expected to vote next month to *extend the peacekeeping mandate for another year, alongside a plan for a speedy exit* [emphasis added]...



Huh?

More, with which we would necessarily be associated should we go in any substantial way:



> ...
> In the past four years the UN mission has tried to help improve governance and security. But standards are still abysmal. Congolese soldiers and rebels habitually rape hapless civilians. Corruption is rife, the courts rotten. The UN reckons that 70% of the country’s prisoners, most of them kept in vile conditions, have yet to be tried...
> 
> The UN has been training and supporting Congo’s regular forces. It supplies them with food, firepower and transport. The government says its army has improved...
> ...



Lovely, eh? And don't it all sound a lot like why a lot of people decry the Afghan mission?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Apr 2010)

From a _Torch_ post:

CF for Congo: Pressure builds 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/cf-for-congo-pressure-builds.html



> This is really starting to look like a well-orchestrated campaign. It would certainly seem that well-placed people in Ottawa are hard at it; a combination of the government and the CF/Army (if the latter are involved shameful and shameless)?..
> 
> this hot off the Net (UN officials do not go public as below without some sort of green light):
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Apr 2010)

Afstan, Congo, R2P: 'The phrase "stick a fork in it" comes to mind'--excerpts from a post by BruceR. at _Flit_  (do read it all) 
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_04_20.html#006710
that gores all those who think doing what is really often fairly dirty work can be done squeakily-clean.  There's a real world out there folks in which being lilly human rights white simply ain't realistic if one actually wants to achieve something (cf. the Allies' alliance with Stalin during WW II); which does not mean one should not try being good guys as far as reasonably possible:



> It's nice of Prof. Stephen Saideman to try and resurrect some form of a post-2011 Afghan mission in the opinion pages of the Globe,
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/canada-has-more-choices-than-all-or-nothing-in-afghanistan/article1539761/
> but surely he's got to see that the ideas he proposes -- perpetuating the PRT and the OMLT presence -- are probably non-starters in the current detainee-allegations-laden realm of public opinion.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Apr 2010)

The Congo has finally been raised in the Commons. NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar (a supporter of a new Canadian mission) 
http://www.ndp.ca/press/dewar-congo-calling-will-canada-answer
asked in Question Period today if the government would support the UN's interest in having Lt.-Gen. Leslie take command of MONUC. Foreign affairs minister Lawrence Cannon confirmed that Canada has been asked by the UN (along with some other countries) to provide a new commander for the UN mission and that the government was considering the request.

Now that the cat is officially out of the bag will the government bring this--rather consequential--matter forward for debate in the Commons if it looks favourably on the request?

On the other hand, if the government declines, how will it explain its decision to the legion of Canadian lovers of UN peackeeping? Though MONUC is not "traditional peacekeeping" since it's under Chapter VII of the UN Charter [see 8. here], not Chapter VI, and is allowed to be quite forceful, including deadly.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Apr 2010)

Congo no go? But a minor go might just, er, grow 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/congo-no-go-but-minor-go-might-just-er.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 May 2010)

CBC: No Congo Mission for CF 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/04/cbc-no-congo-mission-for-cf.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 May 2010)

After Afghanistan: Peacekeepers or War makers?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/after-afghanistan-peacekeepers-or-war.html



> An intelligent discussion on TVO's _The Agenda_, in which Steve Staples is called out on the difference between UN "blue helmet" peacekeeping and its current Congo mission (which we appear to have avoided), and in which Janice Stein in surprisingly, er, robust. Video...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 May 2010)

Afstan: Prime Minister as, er, brave (or is that principled?) as his Dutch counterpart? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2010/05/afstan-prime-minister-as-er-brave-as.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 May 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, are some useful thoughts from historian (and occasional Army.ca contributor) Jack Granatstein:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/peacekeeping-if-necessary-but-not-necessarily-peacekeeping/article1580442/


> Peacekeeping if necessary, but not necessarily peacekeeping
> *Participation should always depend on two things: Is it in our national interests and can the Canadian Forces do it?*
> 
> J.L. Granatstein
> ...



Granatstein says, _”Our interests are clear. Canada must defend its territory, its people and its unity. It must work to strengthen the economic welfare of its citizens and, as a liberal democracy, it must co-operate with its friends in advancing freedom.”_ and, in the same paragraph, _”These interests require that we focus first on our own territory, North America and the Western Hemisphere, and on areas of the world, such as the Middle East or Southwest Asia, where conflicts are likely to expand and threaten the globe.”_

I would grossly oversimplify our vital interests into two words: *Peace* and *Prosperity*; the two appear, to me, to be interrelated: peace is required for countries to become and remain prosperous* and prosperity seems to reduce the desire to risk wars.

The policy _requirements_ Granatstein draws from his statement of interests are justifiable enough and are consistent with the policies of the government of the day.

_Peacekeeping_, of whatever flavour, remains problematical at a policy level: _Pearsonian_ peacekeeping is dead and gone; it doesn’t matter that Canadians have a deep and abiding (and quite peculiar) affection for it; it was, as Granatstein correctly says, a relic of the Cold War – we did it, peacekeeping, because it was a way we could, economically, serve the best interests of the big, US led West; it was never about altruism; it was always about *our* best interests.

The new sorts of ‘robust’ peacekeeping are hard to manage: too hard for the United Nations which is _institutionally_ inept. Subcontracting to NATO is a way out but, as I believe Afghanistan proves, NATO is not good at early 21st century operations. NATO is unable, in my view, top ‘see’ beyond its established purpose of using massive, technologically sophisticated, _standardized_ force to defeat a huge, almost as sophisticated, aggressive foe. IF we ever come to fear e.g. China then NATO, transformed in the long dead SEATO or something, would be the way to go.

What is needed is a “coalition of the willing” with three tiers:

1.	*Tier 1*: a small cadre of large, rich, sophisticated forces that can provide, above all, money and logistics to the force. The group must include the USA;

2.	*Tier 2*: a medium sized group of troop contributing nations, this group _may_, on a case by case basis, include France, Spain, the UK and the US, but will, almost always, include e.g. Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, India, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa and so on;

3.	*Tier 3*: a larger group of ‘spear carrier’ nations – selected according to theatre of operations.

The _coalition_ needs a top level _management_ team, especially to standardize e.g. C2, which, I suggest, groups like ABCA, AUSCANZUKUS and CCEB can provide. There needs to a _political_ team added to those purely military groups, as NATO has, to do the _subcontracting_ work with the UN.


----------
* There is an argument that a good war can instil prosperity; 1939-45 is often used as an example. It is not a case of cause and effect. Going to war did, indeed, _help_ bring the _Great Depression_ to an end and it did, also, spur unprecedented industrial and technological development, but so could many, many other _arrays_ of socio-economic measures and they all could have done so in the 1930s and without _sacrificing_ 60,000,000 people.


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Jul 2010)

Iraq? Post at _Unambiguously Ambidextrous_:

UN good for something?
http://unambig.com/un-good-for-something/



> One wonders if all those UN-loving Canadians would want us to take part is this possible peacekeeping mission:
> 
> "*U.S. eyes UN peacekeepers for Iraq after 2011*"...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (8 Jul 2010)

> *Ottawa, military wonder what's next in Afghanistan*
> Murray Brewster
> The Canadian Press
> 05 July 2010
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Aug 2010)

Longish post drawing on article by Jack Granatstein today, with my own thoughts:

The Canadian Forces, war present, and future?
http://unambig.com/the-canadian-forces-war-present-and-future/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (11 Aug 2010)

2011 is closer than we think; what next?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/08/11/jack-granatstein-life-after-afghanistan/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter



> *Jack Granatstein: Life after Afghanistan*
> 
> Doug Schmidt / Postmedia News
> NATO soldiers salute the casket of Canadian Captain Richard Leary at a ramp ceremony at Kandahar Airfield on June 4, 2008.
> ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Aug 2010)

The piece actually was first out (published is so yesterday)  two days ago:
http://www.globalnews.ca/world/story.html?id=3375472

I had this to add:
http://unambig.com/the-canadian-forces-war-present-and-future/

'...Here’s the problem. It is the function of the government to identify for the military the general types of missions that they may be required to perform. It is then up to the military to tell the government what numbers and types of forces and equipments are required and roughly what they may cost. The government finally should make the decision about what capabilities it is ultimately willing to pay for.

But our recent governments, Liberal and Conservative, have been both unwilling and (more important) incapable to engage in the sort of serious, and politically fraught (some traditional missions may have to be ditched and there may be job losses somewhere), analytic thinking that is required for such an exercise. Sadly, the CF themselves have done little or nothing to encourage such thinking, each service being afraid that it may be gored in the process.

The Conservatives’ “Canada First Defence Strategy” is no strategy at all. It is essentially a shopping list, one that this government is in fact unlikely to be willing fully to pay for given the current budget crunch. Liberal shopping most likely would be even more constrained though.

Trying to maintain “combat-capable, flexible, multi-role” Canadian Forces for all three services along current lines is, to my mind, simply impossible for all those services to be effective and efficient, given the limited funding that our governments (both stripes) are willing to provide.

So, in other words, a true “defence strategy” would attempt to:

1) Outline how the government thinks the CF should be employed for national, and then international, purposes;

2) Outline what mix of service capabilities are required to fulfill those roles.

But that would require serious decisions with political and service consequences this government is not willing to make–nor are, I am sure, most Canadians. Will any Canadian government ever be so ready?

Meanwhile the Brits, unlike us, are going to do some real thinking on the matter…

The CF are trying to maintain or acquire too many capabilities (e.g. blue-water navy, submarines, all-purpose stealth fighters [more here, here and here]) that simply will not be affordable in my view…'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Aug 2010)

Post at _Unambiguously Ambidextrous_:

The ineffable delights of UN Peacekeeping, Congo section
http://unambig.com/the-ineffable-delights-of-un-peackeeping-congo-section/

Mark
Ottawa


----------

