# Latest on ending the mission in '09



## Remius (3 Sep 2007)

"We're out in '09"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070903.AFGHANPOLITICS03/TPStory/National


----------



## BKells (3 Sep 2007)

No, the battlegroup tasking is over in '09.

Is that THAT bad a thing? We've carried our combat load for 3 or 4 years. When will another of the 37 NATO nations in Afghanistan step up?


----------



## Remius (3 Sep 2007)

Just quoting the article title...


----------



## McG (3 Sep 2007)

BKells said:
			
		

> No, the battlegroup tasking is over in '09.





> "2011 for international aid, 2009 for the military mission," Mr. Bernier told Radio-Canada television last week.


Ending the military mission means ending much more than just the Battle Group.  PRT, OMLTs, SOF, and various other entities would also end.

And if nobody else steps in, the Taliban will have won.


----------



## Remius (3 Sep 2007)

Although I do feel we've done our part and contributed substantially, without a clear and adequate replacement force, I'm worried what might happen.  The Aussies are talking about pulling from some areas if the Dutch do.  Could we see a domino effect if we do the same?

Would be a shame if we pulled out and all that work, blood and sweat was for nought.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Sep 2007)

Perhaps the Conservatives have made this announcement as a political gambit. Before Harper commits to further rotations he surely wants to garner more public support ?


----------



## Remius (3 Sep 2007)

I'm pretty sure it's political.  If you think about it, by stating the mission will not extend past 2009 he's neutering the Liberals' attempt to make this an election issue.  The problem is what happens over there because of it.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Sep 2007)

Meanwhile AQ/Taliban die in large numbers.


----------



## McG (3 Sep 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Before Harper commits to further rotations he surely wants to garner more public support ?


He does not appear to be doing very much to build that support.  At the moment, the opposition is launching an aggressive campaign to devalue the importance of military contributions to victory in Afghanistan. Canadians are being missinformed and sold a non-vision which cannot work. Nobody is doing a clear job of fixing that.

If the House votes this fall to end the mission in '09, then wheels will be set in motion.  The damage done will be too great to undo next year even if the Conservatives were to win a majority in a winter or spring election.


.... I think Canadians have also had enough of politicians that announce they will do one thing and then do the opposite a year down the road.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Sep 2007)

I dont think Parliament will vote this fall to withdraw from Afghanistan. Just my gut feeling. Iraq is improving. If this trend continues I see more US troops deploying to Afghanistan. The US move into Nuristan may draw the taliban away from Kandahar which would make life a bit easier there. Like moths to a flame. ;D


----------



## Remius (3 Sep 2007)

Ah, but it's not a vote to withdraw, it's a vote to extend the mission.


----------



## Remius (3 Sep 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> He does not appear to be doing very much to build that support.  At the moment, the opposition is launching an aggressive campaign to devalue the importance of military contributions to victory in Afghanistan. Canadians are being missinformed and sold a non-vision which cannot work. Nobody is doing a clear job of fixing that.
> 
> If the House votes this fall to end the mission in '09, then wheels will be set in motion.  The damage done will be too great to undo next year even if the Conservatives were to win a majority in a winter or spring election.
> 
> ...


----------



## R.O.S (4 Sep 2007)

So how will Canada be seen by the world? and what will Canadians think of themselves if we do leave? 

Just to clarify, Liberals send troops to afganistan. THen liberals complain to conservative that the conservatives want to upgrade the military, and save troop lives by doing so. Now Liberals flip and want to retreat.... like burgers, they flip when one side is done and they may get burnt. And all other oppositions seem to be smoking some bad crack, believing in fairy tales. Canada needs a military, and Canada needs to prevail in Afganistan. It is not about whether someone believed in the initial war cause. What has been done is done, what Canada is doing now is what needs to be supported to the end, or we fail the Afghan people (present and future), and we fail ourselves. 

Cheers


----------



## AIC_2K5 (4 Sep 2007)

> Ending the military mission means ending much more than just the Battle Group.  PRT, OMLTs, SOF, and various other entities would also end.



"One government source said that after recent discussions inside government they now expect that Mr. Harper will ask Parliament to approve a different role in Afghanistan after 2009, rather than an extension of the current Kandahar deployment."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070903.AFGHANPOLITICS03/TPStory/National

Perhaps this 'different role' pertails a continued deployment of a Special Operations Task Force, or the OMLT or SAT-A. Maybe Harper will try to negotiate a smaller deployment in a different region of the country. Then again, maybe this statement means nothing...


----------



## KevinB (4 Sep 2007)

Makes me sick to be Canadian.


----------



## 18-and-ready (4 Sep 2007)

Would you rather be American?


----------



## armyvern (4 Sep 2007)

18-and-ready said:
			
		

> Would you rather be American?



WTF is that supposed to mean?? Seems rather insulting to me. Now tell me, does being American have to do with anything??


----------



## 18-and-ready (4 Sep 2007)

I was simply going off what the previous comment was
I agree our government does some silly things at times
but really...Id much rather be Canadian

Simply if your not Canadian whats your other option?


----------



## armyvern (4 Sep 2007)

18-and-ready said:
			
		

> I was simply going off what the previous comment was
> I agree our government does some silly things at times
> but really...Id much rather be Canadian
> 
> Simply if your not Canadian whats your other option?



He didn't say he didn't want to be a Canadian did he?? Your inferred insult of being American isn't appreciated, at least by me.


----------



## 18-and-ready (4 Sep 2007)

Who said anything about me insulting anyone
I asked him a question, how do you purpose I sugar coat it.
shall I start using brackets and explain how I am saying it?

If I want to insult someone I don't need to use a sly double meaning sentence to do it.


----------



## armyvern (4 Sep 2007)

18-and-ready said:
			
		

> Who said anything about me insulting anyone
> I asked him a question, how do you purpose I sugar coat it.
> shall I start using brackets and explain how I am saying it?
> 
> If I want to insult someone I don't need to use a sly double meaning sentence to do it.



Well, it sure comes off as an insult.  I'd start using those brackets ...


----------



## Thompson_JM (4 Sep 2007)

18-and-ready said:
			
		

> I was simply going off what the previous comment was
> I agree our government does some silly things at times
> but really...Id much rather be Canadian
> 
> Simply if your not Canadian whats your other option?



Well...... theres British, Australian, Dutch.... or pretty much any other country out there...

but by all means 18, dont let me stop you... keep digging........

and im with I-6...

this sort of thing frustrates me to no end and really makes sick at times.... and before you go shooting off again, I-6 and myself have both been over there, and speaking for myself, have lost people i knew, and seen enough death, devastation, and utter shit to last me quite some time.... the worst areas of hamilton are heaps nicer then some of the best neighbourhoods of Kandahar City...

so when I-6 or I say it makes us sick, It because these Idiots are basically taking all the Sacrifice all of us made over there, and throwing it away for partisan politics....

and for the Record, I like the Americans.... those boys know how to throw a war.... and their medivac pilots would Land in Hell to rescue the injured.... Good bunch of boys.

anyways, thats my .02
-Tommy


----------



## 18-and-ready (4 Sep 2007)

Tommy said:
			
		

> Well...... theres British, Australian, Dutch.... or pretty much any other country out there...
> 
> but by all means 18, dont let me stop you... keep digging........
> 
> ...



Tommy, your right.

Infidel-6 / ArmyVern / Tommy
Maybe my question was phrased wrong and maybe I was out of line
For that I apologize


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Sep 2007)

"Man Bites Dog" alert - Globe & Mail issues "clarification":

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070904.CLARIFICATION04/TPStory/?query=clarification

CLARIFICATION
September 4, 2007

The headline in yesterday's Globe and Mail, "We're out by February '09, Mackay says," referred to Defence Minister Peter MacKay's statement that Canada has signalled to allies that the current configuration of the Canadian Forces mission in Kandahar will end by that date. Mr. MacKay did not rule out the possibility that Canadians would remain in Afghanistan after 2009.


----------



## Flip (4 Sep 2007)

The Globe wouldn't be trying to reposition our government now would it? 


> "Man Bites Dog" alert - Globe & Mail issues "clarification":



My iteration on some previous comment FWIW would be

Some Canadians make me sick.- 

I have been fortunate enough to know some truly great Canadians.
Some have honored Canada while in uniform some while out of uniform.
I can list 'em if you want.

I think it's fair to say our current social and political climate makes nearly
all of us sick. Sick of the ignorance mostly. Sick of the Globe and mail perhaps.

I defer to Infidel-6 and any other veterans of course - I'm just making a suggestion.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Sep 2007)

Heck, as crazy as this may seem, let's see the words the Def Min used on CTV this weekend, so we can be the judge....

"...the Prime Minister has been very clear and very honest, firstly, in having a vote last spring which did not occur when the previous government started this mission. It did not happen with consultation with a vote in parliament. But we took that step and we have committed, *the Prime Minister has committed to having our soldiers there until February of 2009*. But in the interim period *there will be another vote taken in parliament if there was to be any extension*, so I expect that this discussion will take place in the House of Commons this fall."

"As far as the signal that has been sent already is that our current configuration will end in February 2009. *Obviously the aid work and the diplomatic effort and presence will extend well beyond that and the Afghan compact itself goes until to 2011. But the way the mission is currently configured with respect to our presence in Kandahar, there is an expiration date that has been set*. But the commitment to reexamine this issue in the House of Commons where parliament can have its say in a very diplomatic and democratic forum. That's what we're committed to."

Here's a transcript of the interview.


----------



## KevinB (4 Sep 2007)

Geez what a waffle.  I must say I'm regreting wanting O'Connor gone as DM.  

  I'm utterly revolted with the sudden lack of gumption on the CPC to continue the full mission.  Scaling back the combat force will reduce the security situation, and we will be complicit in helping the Afghan gov't fail.  This sort of half-assed business would have had us stop somewhere in Normandy in June of 1944.

Needless to say as a CPC member who has been donating a bit of money to their coffers the next time I get a request - Instead of simply saying toss another 300 or so $ on my credit card - I will say sorry I dont appreciate the direction the party is going, and I've dried up as a fund source.


----------



## Bobby Rico (4 Sep 2007)

I'm sort of on the fence regarding this whole thing.  In one way, it pisses me off that our government would pull the military out of action before the job is done.  Nobody likes a job half-done, yet we're expected to swallow our pride and accept that as the way it is.  At the same time, our military the way it is, simply can't commit itself to a mission like this which may potentially have no end, similar to what's going on in Iraq.  An end has to be made by the participating parties at some point, otherwise you're locked in something that has the momentum to go longer than anyone would care to imagine.  Lets face it, bullets can't destroy ideals, and as long as the taliban keep recruiting more followers, it's difficult, near impossible to be able to predict when this thing can come to a satisfactory end.  

This is the problem with waging an unconventional war using conventional means.  We expect the otherside to one day just say 'Okay, we give up.'   It's just not a realistic expectation though, and I think people need to understand that.  I don't think any war is unwinable, but the question one has to ask is whether the sacrifice is really worth the rewards?

As an aside, I sincerely hope I'll get my chance to go over there before the pull out happens.


----------



## Flip (4 Sep 2007)

> Needless to say as a CPC member who has been donating a bit of money to their coffers the next time I get a request - Instead of simply saying toss another 300 or so $ on my credit card - I will say sorry I dont appreciate the direction the party is going, and I've dried up as a fund source.



I only donate about 20 bucks at a time. - I call it prudent ;D

When the NDP drops by, I shout the candidate off my front step! >

MaryKay Peter McKay is grasping for cred. in the face of a blizzard of crap from the media.

The opposition needs to be confronted with - withdraw the troops=causing
a civil war.( hey that's my opinion)

We can't let them say withdrawl=peace.

my few simple thoughts anyway............


----------



## KevinB (4 Sep 2007)

Dude, as someone on the ground in Iraq and additionally over year in Afganistan, its a bad comparission.

  However neither missions are open ended - both countries have had democratically elections, they are fledgling democracies, and both need help to survive.  Think about the size and lenght of time we had forces in Cyprus (30 years with at least a BN sized force) the FYR missions from UNPROFOR, IFOR, SFOR, KFOR, and look at the troop concentrations in those areas.

  Its a long hard road - but progress is coming by leaps and bound - we have a benchmark, and in both countries the national security forces are progressing along.  The trick is NOT to cut and run.  Gradually forces can be thinned out - and the majority of the combat, local patrollign and general security missions will be done by the local forces.  But until that time leaving before is criminal.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Sep 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Think about the size and lenght of time we had forces in Cyprus (30 years with at least a BN sized force) the FYR missions from UNPROFOR, IFOR, SFOR, KFOR, and look at the troop concentrations in those areas.  Its a long hard road - but progress is coming by leaps and bound - we have a benchmark, and in both countries the national security forces are progressing along.



Problem is that the timeline needed for a fully-implemented solution is WAY longer than the timeline politicians (esp. those in a minority position, no matter what the party) think about when it comes to wanting to be re-elected.  Yes, I prefer living in a democracy, but this is one of the flaws we live with (albeit gritting our teeth in some cases).....


----------



## McG (4 Sep 2007)

Bubbles said:
			
		

> "One government source said that after recent discussions inside government they now expect that Mr. Harper will ask Parliament to approve a different role in Afghanistan after 2009, rather than an extension of the current Kandahar deployment."
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070903.AFGHANPOLITICS03/TPStory/National
> 
> Perhaps this 'different role' pertails a continued deployment of a Special Operations Task Force, or the OMLT or SAT-A. Maybe Harper will try to negotiate a smaller deployment in a different region of the country. Then again, maybe this statement means nothing...


Except that when you have the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicating "aid" until 2011 & the military only stays until 2009 (see the quote I had in the post you've quoted), I read it to say that the PM is looking for a new all civilian role that will be staffed by diplomats.  Maybe the RCMP will stay too.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Sep 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> Except that when you have the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicating "aid" until 2011 & the military only stays until 2009 (see the quote I had in the post you've quoted), I read it to say that the PM is looking for a new all civilian role that will be staffed by diplomats.  Maybe the RCMP will stay too.



This part  -- "the way the mission is currently configured with respect to our presence in Kandahar, there is an expiration date that has been set" -- is weasely enough to allow for SOME military presence (training and other non-combat stuff), but it certainly does leave the door open for zero military participation.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (5 Sep 2007)

Ruxpin predicts:

Our mission will indeed "end" in 2009.  By that time we'll have transitioned almost exclusively to an ANA mentoring role (of a brigade no less) and can wind up the "combat role".  A matter of semantics if you ask me.

By Feb 2009, we'll have a large (perhaps even larger than currently contemplated) OMLT role ("noncombat", heh), a PRT and some enablers.  This will allow the government of the day - of whatever stripe - to claim that the focus of the mission has indeed changed, but will keep us fully and heavily engaged in Kandahar.  Net savings to the CF?  A company, perhaps, and maybe the tanks/recce squadron.

Personally, I believe that this has long been the government's plan and will allow Harper _et al_ to claim they've adjusted the mission in response to public "concerns" while in reality nothing really will have changed...

Politicians...bah!


----------



## observor 69 (5 Sep 2007)

The stink of our failure



By CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD  

Wednesday, September 5, 2007 – Page A1 



KANADAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- I left Kandahar yesterday for the fourth time in 18 months. For the first time, I left filled with shame.

On the micro level, it was because a story that unfolded before a trusty colleague of mine, Steve Chao of CTV, was fresh in my mind. Mr. Chao was at Patrol Base Wilson, a Canadian base in the Taliban heartland of Zhari district, last weekend, and was interviewing a local Afghan National Police chief when, off in the distance, came the telltale smoke of a roadside bomb.

A U.S. private security truck escorting a tanker had been blown up, and its men and the ANP travelling with them were now under fire. The police chief, Colonel Gulam Rasool Aka, impeccably starched and dressed and to all appearances a good policemen (there are more of these than you would think), was on the phone to his guys taking fire. As Mr. Chao watched, a Canadian came out of a command post to ask what was going on. Col. Aka told him and asked if the Canadians could help; the man said, "Keep me informed," and disappeared back into the CP.

For all the problems that bedevil the ANP, and they are legion, not being able to rely on their Canadian allies traditionally has not been one of them.

Now, on this day at least it was, and though there may be good reason why and there's no doubt the Canadians cannot ride to the rescue of the alternately beleaguered and inept ANP every time, it still grated because I remember a time, last year, when Canadians were everyone's go-to boys.

But in a broader way, I left with the stink of failure in my nose.

The Canadian mission in Afghanistan is not failing, though its progress is measured some days in millimetres (my late father had a far better term for such a fine unit) and it is far from perfect.

Like those of the other donor nations whose dollars flood this place, Canada's effort in this country has suffered from a surfeit of good will and a lack of hard-nosed resolve to make funds contingent upon action on the internal corruption that is rife in Afghanistan and the fledgling government of President Hamid Karzai.

Rather, what stuck in my nostrils was a failure of nerve: Canada, I fear, has lost its collective stomach for this exercise. It's too tough, too hard, too damn slow, and the cost - 70 lives down and, as an Ottawa-datelined story I read yesterday jauntily noted, "and counting" - is too great.

The signs are everywhere.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has pledged to quickly bring a motion to the House of Commons formally setting February, 2009, as the day Canada's combat role will end here. The NDP's Jack Layton is still demanding Canadian troops withdraw now, and has added the twist that Canada should take the lead in "peace talks" here.

Since the only group at war with Canada in Afghanistan is the Taliban and the warlords and narco-criminals who are their allies of convenience, I guess Mr. Layton means peace talks with them. Presumably, as the pundits are saying, Mr. Layton considers the Taliban's recent negotiations with South Korea - why, only two of those foolish but innocent hostages were murdered after all - is evidence of their new respectability.

And more tellingly, those in Ottawa skilled at reading the tea leaves of the Stephen Harper government suggest that the Conservatives have lost their appetite for this particular battle.

I hope they are wrong, but in light of what new Defence Minister Peter MacKay was last weekend telling CTV's Question Period, it's hard to remain optimistic. Mr. MacKay said that Canada's NATO allies have been reminded they "cannot count on our troops" after February of 2009, though he was quick to reassure Canadians that "the aid work and the diplomatic effort and presence will extend well beyond that."

Well, that is just a glorious crock.

The critics of this mission like to say there has never been an honest debate about it in Parliament, the suggestion that if only there had been, fighting troops would never have been sent here because the Canadian people always prefer to see their soldiers in peaceable roles. That may or may not be true, but that's certainly what public-opinion polls indicate and it's what Canadian politicians appear to mostly believe.

But if you thought the previous debates were a farce, the coming one may make them look full and forthright.

The truth is that in the south, including Kandahar province, which is the Canadian area of operations, there is barely an aid effort now, and that's with Canadian troops here in force.

That's not because Canadian soldiers haven't tried, or are overarmed mouth-breathers unable to grasp the delicate nuance of reconstruction and development work, the bleating of some NGOs notwithstanding. Soldiers are damned capable, better in my mind than the earnest folks at the aid agencies who claim to know best how to deliver help. And the troops have made a genuine difference in myriad small ways, which is how development really happens on the ground.

But the real aim here is to build the capacity of Afghans - in government, in its institutions such as the army and police and in politicians and district leaders - and that is painfully slow and barely visible work, especially when the good folks keep getting killed off and beheaded by those with whom Mr. Layton would conduct negotiations.

And it can't be done on any real scale until there's what everyone here calls security, by which they really mean someone has to regularly kick the snot out of the Taliban and their allies until they are reduced, as appears to be happening in Kandahar province, to suicide and roadside bombings and fleeting attacks, and eventually fewer of those, too.

That takes soldiers, and soldiers who are willing to fight, and suffer losses, and occasionally emerge with bloody noses. Canadian soldiers, including, most remarkably, the families of those who have died here, remain willing and committed. The Brits and Americans aside, none of Canada's NATO allies have shown much eagerness to step up to the plate, nor has anyone else.

So the truth of it is, if Parliament decides that, as Mr. MacKay put it, "our current configuration," meaning combat troops, will end in early 2009, no one should draw comfort from the promise that "the aid work" will continue merrily on. It won't. Neither is it likely another country will step up to fill the vacuum left by departing Canadian soldiers, and even if one does, they won't be as good at the hard work - of killing and being killed, as well as talking and building - as Canadians are. And Afghanistan will slide deeper into the chaos that as always is on a low boil, burbling within.

That's why I left Kandahar yesterday feeling ashamed. Where failure itself is often honourable, failing to stay the course is not, and that's what's in the air.

cblatchford@globeandmail.com

http://tinyurl.com/2ql5rt

And that ladies and gentlemen is the harsh reality.


----------



## MG34 (5 Sep 2007)

This country disgusts me sometimes


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Sep 2007)

Its too bad she doesn't check in here more often.


----------



## Exarecr (5 Sep 2007)

Tsk Tsk tsk. So much anger. So much bitterness over stupid uninformed politicians and a apathetic uncaring public which knows little about its Military. No news here. Besides, Harper now has a new cause to steel our mighty forces with. Arctic sovereignty. Yup, seems hiring 30 or 40 new Arctic rangers with their shinny new lee-enfields should hold off the Danes ,Norwegians -Germans(hard to imagine the Norwegians in bed with the Germans) Russians and Americans who sniff not blood, but apathy and a Canada that has absolutely no vision or sense of its past or what the future could hold. What can we expect from Politicians who think a flanking is Flemish for spanking,or a pincer movement  a not quite dead lobster. I can picture Taliban Jack looking in frustration at a modern rifle wondering where in the hell the gas goes to fill er up. Maybe when 09 finally arrives the powers to be will have established a Vietnam style peacekeeping dress such as our Forces were put into during the final days of that conflict(those hideous black shorts with knee high socks) that at least left every one laughing for a few weeks. Sometimes I think this Country just isn,t worth the anger or frustration we have to put up with, yet put me in a bar anywhere in the world and I would defend this Countries honour to the last beer! Rant over.


----------



## Flip (5 Sep 2007)

The truth hurts
It was written to "hurt" the ones who would withdraw.

I think she's the first mainsream journalist to suggest there is no 
honorable way to just bugger off.

Hard as that was to read - I'm glad someone has said what was needed.

Thankyou Christie.

Maybe the Globe will read and print my letter of outrage???


----------



## Greymatters (5 Sep 2007)

Certainly different from the mainstream we usually see!  Nice to see a reporter with backbone...


----------



## Teflon (5 Sep 2007)

Flip;



> Maybe the Globe will read and print my letter of outrage???



Have a copy to post here?


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Sep 2007)

Hopefully, and this is just a hope, Canadians of the honourable kind (eg: most of us), will also be disgusted with the latest "hints" of "tail tucking" and will send a loud and powerful message to Ottawa: Don't stop now!

As for Mr. Layton of the NDP.  I'll say nothing: Ms. Blatchford hit the nail on the head regarding him and his "proposals".


----------



## seamus (5 Sep 2007)

When reading into MacKay's comments on question period remember this. He stated that Canada would not keep the current configuration in Afghanistan without the support of Parliment. Does this mean they will up the numbers of the PRT. Or does it mean that if the Harper Government gets a majority they will continue the current numbers and manning? Remember politicians are shifty people.


----------



## Flip (5 Sep 2007)

Teflon, 
Sorry I haven't written it yet - I will :-[

By the way David Bercuson has an opinion piece on Page A17
Also in today's globe. The upshot of it is that Dion should cool
his jets and do a responsible thing instead of what he's doing.
Link anyone?....

Like I said - I'll write - and we'll see what happens.


----------



## COBRA-6 (5 Sep 2007)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Ruxpin predicts:
> 
> Our mission will indeed "end" in 2009.  By that time we'll have transitioned almost exclusively to an ANA mentoring role (of a brigade no less) and can wind up the "combat role".  A matter of semantics if you ask me.
> 
> ...



I was thinking along the same lines, no more "battle group" but a much larger OMLT and a re-enforced PRT with some enablers (Arty, DFS, etc), but without much of a change in total numbers on the ground...


----------



## Teflon (5 Sep 2007)

> When reading into MacKay's comments on question period remember this. He stated that Canada would not keep the current configuration in Afghanistan without the support of Parliment. Does this mean they will up the numbers of the PRT. Or does it mean that if the Harper Government gets a majority they will continue the current numbers and manning? Remember politicians are shifty people.



Also we are already seeing a large increase in the Omelet (spelling?) Could this be signaling not a size cut in our commitment but the numbers remaining somewhat unchanged and just the main roles changing? A slow but steady decrease of pers for combat ops with a steady increase of pers training and assisting the ANA?


----------



## observor 69 (5 Sep 2007)

OK someone explain this to me. If we back out of the combat role and NATO can't get any country to take our place, as it looks right now may happen, what keeps the bad guys from coming in and blowing up all our good works???


----------



## armyvern (5 Sep 2007)

True story ...

Absolutely nothing does Baden Guy.

That's why this whole current "idea" is just so ill-thought and just plain wrong. Blatchford had it right. Sadly.


----------



## Flip (5 Sep 2007)

Cobra 6,


> I was thinking along the same lines, no more "battle group" but a much larger OMLT and a re-enforced PRT with some enablers (Arty, DFS, etc), but without much of a change in total numbers on the ground...


In commercial circles it's called "re-branding".

Baden Guy, 
I don't think the consequences of a pullout have been spelled out nearly strongly enough.

Last night I heard an interview Carol Off was doing with the Minister of Defence of the Netherlands.
The debate there sounds exactly like the debate here. It's starting to sound like NATO is about
to fold like a house of cards.

Should our collective spine fail and the whole thing collapses - What then?
Peace?...... Certainly not!

The Afghan National government will likely have a civil war on it's hands
for the simple reason that WE in the west don't like to hear sad news.

Lefties like to obfuscate about providing aid without military support....

In the great words of Lewis Mackenzie "Gimme a Break"


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Sep 2007)

Cobra 6 and Flip,

You mean something along these lines:

http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/83-Afghanistan-Post-2009.html


----------



## Flip (5 Sep 2007)

The downside of "re-branding" is that the left won't be fooled for long.

If it hits the fan again and of course it will - we start the whole debate over again.

The grim truth of not doing what needs to done is what's missing from the
debate.  Most people in the west think there will no substantial consequences
to removing combat elements.

My opinion anyway.


----------



## KevinB (5 Sep 2007)

The other issue - is the concept has alway been to scale back the "combat element" and up the OMLT - the key is the timing -- one needs to keep a combat capability while the ASF is developing.

 The OMLT is still and imbedded force inside the Kandaks - as such it will go into combat.  However it will not be able to provide the "fire brigade" that the CF formations now are.

  Its much like the morons trying to pull out of Iraq before the ISF are good to go.


Secondly if its just a rebranding - then the gov't is being cowardly and immoral.


----------



## Munxcub (5 Sep 2007)

I think the problem is that it's outside of the average Canadian's "monkey sphere" (google that... it's an interesting concept)

Basically it doesn't affect the everyday Canadian, so ultimately they don't care, or see the connection to themselves. So until something happens here, in our back yard so to speak, the average Canadian could really give 2 turds about what happens over there.


----------



## Greymatters (5 Sep 2007)

Munxcub said:
			
		

> ... "monkey sphere" ...



Ive read of similiar theories before, but never with that name attached to it.  Interesting...


----------



## Loachman (5 Sep 2007)

From today's Montreal Gazette http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=b56bc839-8315-48be-b1f0-4f17cba8799b

Dion's war policy is hare-brained
The Gazette
Published: 17 hours ago
"The Prime Minister must assure Canadians that our troops, including the Royal 22nd Regiment, will end their combat role in Korea by February 1953 under any circumstances," Opposition leader George Drew demanded yesterday. Drew denounced the 'irresponsible ... ambiguity' of Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent ..."

- From The Gazette,

Sept. 2, 1951

Hard to imagine, isn't it? No wonder - it's fiction, made up to demonstrate a point. When soldiers are in combat, announcing they will knock off at a given time no matter what the state of the fight, like so many blue collars at the end of their shift, is absurd. It's a clear signal to the other side that mere persistence, and perhaps a little more killing, will guarantee victory.

Yet this hare-brained approach, we note with considerable dismay, has been adopted by the leader of the official opposition in Parliament, Stéphane Dion. He wants an ironclad guarantee that Canada's combat role will end by February 2009, he says, and with it he wants formal notice to our allies that we're outta there. If he doesn't get it, he claims, he might be prepared to defeat the government over the issue.

Is this merely a shoddy ploy to bolster Liberal chances in the Outremont by-election this month? Or is it serious Liberal policy? Either way, it's not worthy of Dion, a man we endorsed for his party leadership on the basis of his intellectual rigour and clarity.

This is not a question of "supporting our troops," that arch-banality of modern wartime. Nor is it about patriotism. Dion has proved his devotion to Canada far more clearly than most Canadians, and certainly everyone is entitled to be unhappy about the way our soldiers are being used at any particular time.

But this is not the way to express such concern. "Wars begin when you will," Machiavelli said, "but they do not end when you choose."

So what would be the impact of setting a rigid arbitrary deadline, as the Liberals propose? Is Dion merely hoping to pressure other NATO countries into making more of an effort? Does he even care what happens to Afghanistan?

Whatever he's trying to do, his posturing reminds us not of Machiavelli but of another strategist almost 2,000 years earlier. Sun Tzu said that in war, "supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." Canada's resistance to the Taliban's ruthless fanaticism seems, to judge by the Liberal position, to be at the breaking point.

No doubt the Taliban and their allies are aware NATO's biggest countries, except for the United States and Britain, have shown no stomach for sending troops to fight in Afghanistan. No doubt they're aware of the controversy and bitterness within NATO, not least in Canada. No doubt they're aware Canadians split 50-50 on the Afghan mission.

And no doubt they're hoping Dion gets the government locked into a rigid bail-out date. But we're hoping he fails.


----------



## Flip (5 Sep 2007)

Thanks for that Loachman.

I appreciated where it's from....Montreal


----------



## Loachman (5 Sep 2007)

Which was the main reason that I posted it. The tide may be turning on Dion and his stupid beebling.


----------



## GAP (5 Sep 2007)

beebling  beebling  beebling.....what a wonderful word to describe Dion running off at the beak!!!


----------



## stealthylizard (6 Sep 2007)

The whole reason, in my opinion, for the recent jump in recruitment is because of the Afghan mission.  The recruits want to go overseas and do something.  Most people don't sign up for a minimum of 3 years to sit on their butts back home in Canada to fill sandbags for flooding rivers, and clean up streets after eastern ice storms.  If the combat mission ends in 2009, that supply of interested recruits will dry up faster than a glass of water in the desert, and a whole lot that are enlisting right now, or in the recent past will take their leave as soon as their contract is up.


----------



## Flip (6 Sep 2007)

As promised, here is the stuff I'm going to bash off to the Globe.

Wish me luck - my bet is that they don't print it.


> Afghans are a courageous people.
> Millions have risked their lives to vote in democratic elections.
> Millions more have risked their children's lives as well as their own
> simply to send them to school.  Afghan National police and Army members
> ...



P.S. This is the long version - I had to chop it down to 200 words. :-[


----------



## McG (9 Sep 2007)

This is the first time I’ve seen in print that the PM does want to press ahead with the military mission.  This is reassuring.  It is the right thing to do.  Lets hope we start to hear this more often and lets hope that it is the signal that the information campaign is about to start informing Canadians.  



> No rush on Afghan mission extension vote: Harper
> Updated Sun. Sep. 9 2007 11:48 AM ET
> CTV.ca News Staff
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070909/harper_afghan_070909/20070909?hub=TopStories


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Sep 2007)

A touch more detail from another source - usual disclaimer applies.



> *Harper wants troops to 'finish job' in Afghanistan; dims hope for quick vote*
> Bruce Cheadle, Canadian Press, 9 Sept 07
> Article link
> 
> ...


----------

