# Canadians go for strolls to build trust in the streets of Kabul



## bossi (23 Apr 2004)

Canadians go for strolls to build trust in the streets of Kabul

FRANCES BULA 
CanWest News Service 
Friday, April 23, 2004


What Sgt. Geuvens Guimont and his six men were doing yesterday morning looked like the most dangerous way to be a soldier in a country of suicide bombers, snipers and uncertain peace.

They were walking around. No helmets. No armoured vehicles. No vehicles of any kind, in fact. Instead, it was just them, face to face with everyone who was out in the early-morning bustle in this western neighbourhood of Kabul.

While Guimont‘s forward scout and rear guards scrutinized the street constantly for any sign of danger, Guimont and Master Cpl. Nicolas Girard shook hands with the dozens of children who ran up to gawk at the foreign soldiers.

At one point, a dense crowd gathered around Guimont as he stopped in front of a shopkeeper‘s stall.

He asked owner Mohammed Sadeq, through an interpreter, whether there have been any problems in the area - no, none these days - but also queried him about the boxes of henna the customer standing beside him was buying. After Sadeq explained it‘s used sometimes to dye hands and feet for celebrations, but also to help soothe blisters and soreness, Guimont bought a couple of boxes.

It all looks innocuous but what Guimont and his men were doing is as tactically thought out - from the guns-down stance to the smiles they show determinedly to everyone they meet - as any raid on an Al-Qa‘ida hideout and is considered as vital a piece of military strategy as hunting for Osama bin Laden.

In fact, it‘s something Lt.-Gen Rick Hillier, the Canadian commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, asked for when he arrived in February.

"What we assessed early in February was that attacks in December and January had caused the perception that a little bit of a gap was growing between us and the population," Hillier said recently. "We had taken a bit of a backward step, maybe, and that we had more armoured vehicle patrols and less foot patrols."

The orders Hillier sent out were he wanted to see three things happen:

- Go after the bad guys.

- Eliminate anything we‘re doing that is irritating, such as blocking traffic.

- But most importantly, connect with the population.

The Canadians and British have been the most enthusiastic in carrying out that approach while other countries such as France, Germany and Italy have been reluctant to move to any foot patrols at all.

A group like Guimont‘s does at least half of its patrols on foot.

Major Sylvain Beausejour, the deputy commanding officer for the Royal 22nd Regiment stationed in Kabul, read histories of Afghanistan before he came. "Every time people in their heart didn‘t want an invading force here, they always managed to get rid of it."

"Some people think it‘s more dangerous, but not for me," said Pte. Yann Surette, who used his time during a rest break to ask a woman passing by if he can get a picture of himself holding one of her children - a little boy close to the same age as his son at home.

"In a vehicle, you don‘t see nothing, you don‘t have any feedback. It‘s useless."

Vancouver Sun


----------



## stukirkpatrick (23 Apr 2004)

I hope this works out safely, and as long as it does it will probably be worth it, but I‘m afraid that the soldiers will appear to be an easy target for the 1 in a hundred oddball who wants to take out a westerner.


----------



## corporal-cam (23 Apr 2004)

It‘s definatly better than what the Americans are doing in Iraq now. I think it‘ll help make the civilians trust/respect them I just hope some moron doesn‘t decided to take a shot at them.


----------



## willy (23 Apr 2004)

I don‘t think it‘s a question of political will that keeps us in Kabul.  Canadian troops are there as part of the KMNB, or KABUL Multinational Brigade.  The mandate of KMNB is to provide security within Kabul so that the nation building process can continue unhindered by terrorism.  That is enough of a challenge.  If we were to suddenly start sending guys out to Tora Bora, we‘d need more troops in the country, and that isn‘t something that we are, at the moment, capable of providing.


----------



## excoelis (23 Apr 2004)

BTDT.

Half or more of all our patrols from the first roto where dismounted.  Why spin it as something new???

Maj Baker you are absolutely correct in your opinion of what we need to do.  There is a rough plan in place to change our mandate to PRTs or provincial reconstruction teams.  The problem is that this plan, if it comes into being, is not scheduled until roto 5 or 6.


----------



## corporal-cam (23 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb] Well "Cadet" I‘ll take those comments with a grain of salt, especially with all of the experience you have under your belt.
> 
> As for Iraq, go there and then come back and the give me a critique.  Otherwise, **** *** **** **
> [/qb]


Wholy smokes... I was mearly making a comment and comparing it‘s not necissarly the US‘s fault after all Iraq has more suporters in the country than Afghanistan did. You don‘t have to get all defensive and rude. If you want to debate over something go ahead but you don‘t have to be all a jackass about it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Apr 2004)

cpl cam,

That‘s not the way you came across. I read it as pretty condecending also. I suggest before you hit "Add Reply" you read your post yourself a couple of times. This ain‘t the first time though is it. Don‘t bother debating me, I‘m out the door for the field.


----------



## Slim (24 Apr 2004)

Sherwood

There is a lot of truth to what you say.

Any military action has to involve denying ground to the opposition. Even if that means getting out of the capital and saying hello around the country so that the terrorists can‘t do the same thing. The people will "see" that they are full of **** and not support them as much. (which is what they depend on to survive!)

Without the "people" as their quartermaster, the terrorists won‘t be able to carry on, or will but at a severely reduced level.


----------



## FutureTroopie (24 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb]politicians have gotten casualty sensitive.  [/qb]


The public is very squeamish about casualties, and we are talking about politicians who‘s agendas consist of re-election, re-election, re-election and re-election.


----------



## willy (24 Apr 2004)

S_Baker, I agree with a lot of what you‘re saying, but don‘t you think we have to take it one step at a time?  When they were in the midst of the Loya Jirga a few months ago, it wouldn‘t have made much sense to me if our guys were all running around Kandahar, rather than protecting the delegates in Kabul.  Kabul is where all the decision making is going on right now, so to me, it makes perfect sense to stay there and let the process work.  Once the government is somewhat stable, and once the Afghan police and military we‘ve been training are reasonably competent, then we can go out to the provinces and sort them out.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (24 Apr 2004)

> I would use "D" Day 6 June 1944 as an example. If the Allies had waited for the perfect day would it have ever come?


As I recall, they were supposed to leave on the 5th, but they postponed the invasion because the weather wasn‘t perfect


----------



## Northern Touch (24 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb]  That is not happening because politicians have gotten casualty sensitive. Whatever happened to the Motto, "Those Who Dare Win) besides being the SAS‘ (I believe)? [/qb]


It‘s funny you should mention that, since, it was the SAS who began going out on patrols in Bosnia when the UN thought it wasn‘t possible.


----------



## excoelis (24 Apr 2004)

Here‘s a recent article on this very subject:

web page


----------



## excoelis (24 Apr 2004)

Slight correction on the motto of the SAS:

The winged dagger, with the motto "Who Dares Wins", was initially worn on a white beret. This was later changed to a sandy color.

web page


----------



## 1feral1 (25 Apr 2004)

About the ‘winged dagger‘, its actually a flaming sword. Check it out.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## devil39 (25 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb] It is amazing that two peoples that speak the same language get two different ideas from the same post.  I want to try again so as not to be misinterpreted...
> 
> Political will-not just Canada but the whole Multi-national contingent to include the US has got it wrong (IMHO of course      ) The only way Afghanistan is going to get better is for the government to gain control of the outside areas.  That is not going to occur when the Multi-national units won‘t step foot outside of Kabul.  That is not happening because politicians have gotten casualty sensitive. Whatever happened to the Motto, "Those Who Dare Win) besides being the SAS‘ (I believe)? [/qb]


I just do not believe it is possible for the government to gain control of the outside areas.  

This is a country with no history of a strong central government.  Seriously ethnically fragmented.  The tribes themselves are further fragmented into clans who will often not cooperate with each other.  The Soviets created what was probably one of the strongest central governments the country has seen, and it didn‘t last long.  And they never really controlled the countryside.  

This is not to say that the effort shouldn‘t be made to ensure a presence in the various provinces, I just can‘t see what will undoubtedly be a token multinational presence creating any semblace of central control in Afghanistan.

Beyond this, as a soldier, I wouldn‘t even want to begin to consider taking part in the Karzai poppy eradication plan.  Bad news that.  Leave that to the DEA.


----------



## DogOfWar (25 Apr 2004)

[No message]


----------



## devil39 (25 Apr 2004)

WetGrunt, 

I would assume that you are asking about poppies.

In my opinion, a forced eradication program would be the messiest, most dangerous piece of work imaginable, and would create for us innumerable enemies out of people who at this point tolerate us or are at best indifferent to our presence.

If I was an Afghan farmer, I would probably grow poppies too.  Keeping in mind that neither I nor my family would use the drug, and knowing that the end product was going into the body of some bored "westerner" with more money than sense. 

Poor countries, in my opinion, resort to drug cultivation as a result of market demand, and that market is in the west.  If we are not going to put significant resources into the economy and infrastructure of these poor countries, they will obviously resort to more profitable means of maintaining a livelihood.  If we are not going to eliminate the drug market and distribution infrastructure in western countries, how can we fault the poor farmer for growing the plant.  The problem is ours not the Afghan farmers‘.

I believe the figures were that poppies required 1/4 the water as wheat and provided 10 times the profit of wheat for the same sized plot of land.  This is an incredibly poor country, in a high altitude desert, with a huge reliance on very primative, yet effective irrigation systems. 

There is likely scope for action against the high level criminal and/or warlord infrastructure within Afghanistan and internationally, with the aim of eliminating the direct and overt market for the grower within the country.

This is the long answer as to why I would not want to target the AK-47 owning grower, who cultivates the land over which a military force must travel, a grower who would be fighting for the well being and survival of his family.


----------

