# Enough- [A Must Read on Our Success in Afghanistan]



## Mortar guy (23 Aug 2007)

I've had enough. Consider this my rant against ignorance; my protest against agendas, half-truths, and lies. For almost two years I have been closely following the news from and about Afghanistan and it has been demoralizing to say the least. I spent a year in Kabul with the Strategic Advisory Team and watched the media only report the deaths our Forces suffered rather than the successes we (not just the SAT) achieved. I have watched "experts", editorialists, politicians, protesters, activists and pundits mangle facts, misread situations and push agendas. Most of what I have read and seen has been flawed to one degree or another. As a result many Canadians I have spoken to are wholly unaware of what we are doing there and why we are doing it. The debate has been so muddied by poor reporting and incomplete information that most people are stunned when they hear of our successes. 

At the same time I have heard only reactive, ineffective whimpers from our establishment. Our government and DND in particular has done a poor job of getting the message out. Granted things are improving but you only have to look at the News Room on the DND website to see that the majority of news releases concerning Afghanistan concern the deaths and injuries we have suffered in Kandahar. In other words we are playing into the media's "if it bleeds, it leads" approach to coverage.

Here is my attempt to right some wrongs and dispel some of the misinformation out there:

1) *"We cannot win in Afghanistan because insurgencies are impossible to win"* I swear that if I hear one more "expert" or politician with no military experience say this I will reach through the TV and choke someone. I have spent the last three years of my life reading everything I can find on insurgencies as part of my work towards a Masters and I can tell you this - insurgencies can and have been defeated many times in the past. There are ways to defeat an insurgency and I can tell you from my study of this topic and my year of experience working at the strategic level in Afghanistan that we are doing far more right than we are wrong. Furthermore, the insurgency we face is hardly one of the most daunting ever faced. The Taliban are unlikely to ever get past Mao's first stage of insurgency and, more importantly, they lack support from much of the population. To reference Mao again, the Taliban are "fish" swimming in a very small "sea" as their support is mainly limited to one Pashtun tribe in an ethnically diverse country. NATO can defeat the Taliban and with every passing year, Kabul extends its influence and the lives of Afghans improve. This insurgency will be defeated by stability, prosperity and justice and we can see that all are improving gradually.

2) *"No one has ever won in Afghanistan so we will never win"* Not only does this statement display a gross ignorance of Afghan history, it also represents a laughable logical fallacy. It's akin to saying: "the Ottawa Senators didn't win the Cup last year, therefore no one will ever be able to win the Cup!" Comparing the conscript Soviet Army to ISAF defies comprehension - every conceivable aspect of the Soviet experience differs fundamentally from our experience there. Goals, tactics, training, equipment, popular support, international legitimacy are all vastly different, to name but a few.

3) *Attention editors/politicians/protesters: Afghanistan is not Iraq!* Rather than displaying your incredible ignorance of geography, history and international relations, how about you nail down this one fundamental difference? You can disagree with what's happening in Iraq while agreeing with our mission in Afghanistan and vice versa. But, you *cannot* use your opposition to Iraq as a basis for your opposition to Afghanistan - _that's a non sequitur_. Here's a little game you can play: read articles by columnists, in on-line forums or even in the "comments" section following on-line G&M articles and you'll see something very telling. Most people opposed to our mission in Afghanistan make reference to Iraq or George W. Bush at least once when explaining why they are opposed to Afghanistan. I don't get it. Are we really that mad with conspiracy theories that we think that our mission in Afghanistan is in some significant way related to US policy towards Iraq? A more likely explanation is that the crushing ignorance that drowns the debate on Afghanistan is the cause. People are too lazy and too poorly informed to understand the differences between Iraq and Afghanistan and those with agendas encourage this ignorance to reinforce their own arguments.

4) *"All that's happening in Afghanistan is combat"* Ruxted has countered this one in detail but no one seems to want to listen. What really riles me is that DND (or Foreign Affairs, or CIDA) is not just inundating the media with facts and stories about how this is simply not true. 83% of Afghans have access to medical care now where fewer than 9% did before 2001. GDP per capita has doubled and Afghanistan has the fastest growing economy in Asia. Etc., etc. These facts are all out there and available to editors and politicians and yet no one reports these facts. Why? Are they so intent on vilifying Harper that they can't report the facts? I just don't get it.

So what?

Please, all of you who know these facts and more - talk to people. Tell friends, family, strangers. Write letters to the editor if you can or write your MP to tell them you think these points need to be discussed. Ruxted and similar organizations are doing a great job but we all need to back them up and do our part. Consider it a grassroots effort to counter the one-sided stories in the media.

MG

Mod Edit: sorry MG, but this post is too good not to have the contents in the title.
Bruce


----------



## geo (23 Aug 2007)

+1 MG
you should rant more often


----------



## Babbling Brooks (23 Aug 2007)

Brilliant, Mortar guy.

And thanks for your service with SAT-A - not enough people know about the fantastic work that team does.


----------



## GAP (23 Aug 2007)

You have encapsulated the entire "Afghanistan story" frustration of the members on this site in one post.....thank you.


----------



## mover1 (23 Aug 2007)

SEND IT TO AS MANY PAPERS AS POSSIBLE MG


----------



## Haletown (23 Aug 2007)

so for the $1 billion a year we the taxpayers provide,  the CBC does what to provide Canadians with balanced coverage  ????


----------



## CF_Enthusiast (23 Aug 2007)

Some other things I always hear are "We are only there for oil!" and "Opium is not that important to us!". If these half-assed arguments could be countered aswell then I think this would be great to send to newspapers and other media outlets.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Aug 2007)

MG, bang on!  

That is exactly the line I take when the public asks my personal views on what we are achieving in Afghanistan.  People are amazed when provided with a dearth of quantifiable facts about the improvement of the situation in Afghanistan.  I fully agree with you that DND public affairs folks need to more actively shape what information they provide, rather than being content that mainstream media appears to be paying more attention to CF activities in general.  The amount of good, solid work being accomplished by the SAT, ANTC, PRT and CIMIC teams seemed all to often dwarfed under the media's thirst for all things "battle group."  

That said, one of the best pieces yet, and one that I point a lot of folks to is this story reported by CBC's Brian Stewart: Strategic Advisory Team - Afghanistan.  

Only then, do people realize the influence we as Canadians have in the entire nation-rebuilding process in Afghanistan.  For many, if not all, it comes as quite a surprise, and one that tends to give credence to our statements that it is a holistic approach to helping a nation not only rebuild itself, but further develop itself into a dynamic member of international society.  Canadians should be justifiably proud of all members of the CF, and indeed other Canadian governmental and non-governmental agencies alike, as they help Afghans work towards improving their quality of life.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Bane (23 Aug 2007)

Bravo!
MG, follow mover1's suggestion and fire that off to as many papers as you can.


----------



## Gimpy (23 Aug 2007)

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> 1) "We cannot win in Afghanistan because insurgencies are impossible to win" I swear that if I hear one more "expert" or politician with no military experience say this I will reach through the TV and choke someone. I have spent the last three years of my life reading everything I can find on insurgencies as part of my work towards a Masters and I can tell you this - *insurgencies can and have been defeated many times in the past*. There are ways to defeat an insurgency and I can tell you from my study of this topic and my year of experience working at the strategic level in Afghanistan that we are doing far more right than we are wrong. Furthermore, the insurgency we face is hardly one of the most daunting ever faced. The Taliban are unlikely to ever get past Mao's first stage of insurgency and, more importantly, they lack support from much of the population. To reference Mao again, the Taliban are "fish" swimming in a very small "sea" as their support is mainly limited to one Pashtun tribe in an ethnically diverse country. NATO can defeat the Taliban and with every passing year, Kabul extends its influence and the lives of Afghans improve. This insurgency will be defeated by stability, prosperity and justice and we can see that all are improving gradually.



Since you have been doing a lot of research on this topic I was wondering if you could expand on the bolded point and possibly post some links or a bibliography of the materials you've read on the issue. I'm quite interested in this topic as well and any reading material on it would be much appreciated.

As for the rest its very well written but for the first and second points you don't really back it up with any solid examples on the topics. In the first topic you state that insurgencies have been defeated in the past, but you don't give any examples of it. Also, in the second topic you state that its a showing of ignorance of Afghan history to say that no one has ever won a war in Afghanistan, but again you don't give any points to back that up. I'm not slagging your piece, I think its very well done, but if you want a majority of people to really get it and understand it you need to provide solid examples that people can simply type into google or wikipedia and get a good bit of history on the topic.


----------



## Wootan 9 (23 Aug 2007)

Mortar Guy...Excellent post!  As you know, I've been trying to get the message out, but it's an uphill battle with most of the media.  Our Government has done a terrible job communicating the strategic vision for this mission - adding to the frustration level beyond the point of tolerance.  In the aftermath of recent casualties the "new" Ministers have limited their statements to condolances and have left the field to the "commentators."  Problem is that some of the commentators are so ill-informed, so out of it (if they were ever in it) and have never even been to Afghanistan.  Even though CBC knows where I am and how to contact me, it's obviously easier to go the commentator who is both "in town" and can be counted upon to be critical of the mission.  One former Colonel (Retired since the early 90s/Log Branch/former DG Exec Sec!) has, in the past two days been called upon to comment on Taliban tactics and Snowbird seatbelts - amazing!

Anyway, great post - put it on every website that you can find.

MC


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Aug 2007)

Outstanding piece, and sums up exactly my frustrations.  Well said.


----------



## kratz (23 Aug 2007)

+1 MG

The DS was correct is stating your post was well worth the read.


----------



## Scotty Hortonville (23 Aug 2007)

MG -

That was one Hell of a post. Thank you.   

Scotty


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Aug 2007)

MORTAR GUY
If you want to keep your fist from being damaged by a TV tube, do NOT watch NewsNet right now
(Scott Taylor is on there now telling how to avoid IEDs)   :
EDIT: He's done.  Don't worry, I missed what he was saying!  (well, just heard "blah blah" IED.....blah blah...."insurgency"...)


----------



## Bane (23 Aug 2007)

Gimpy, you have some good suggestions as to some evidence that could be included to add some weight to piece. If it is to be submitted to a paper, however, brevity is very important. 

However if you wish to study more on insurgencies and the history of Afghan invasions, here is some stuff to get you started. Also, fill out your profile please.

Insurgencies that have been defeated:
First any of the big empires Roman, Mongol, Ottoman and Macedonian-Hellenic(Alexander, Athens etc.) all had success at quelling insurgencies
The Viet Cong - deafeted shortly before the U.S. pulled out. 
Or, could take a map of Central/South America (or Africa) and pretty much pick any country and you'll find evidence of some kind of insurgency in the last 200 years. Some successful (ex. Mau Mau in Tanganyika), some not so much (El Salvador -80's, Peru more recently) 
Also the Malaysian Emergency from the late 40's to the end of the 50's.
Phillipines in the 50's too. 


A great article on recent Afghan invasions, successful ones and otherwise.
http://www.jmss.org/2006/2006fall/index2.htm


----------



## Shepp (23 Aug 2007)

I am a civilian writing my first post on Army.ca. I am 36, Anglophone, and an Infantry applicant awaiting a merit listing.
When Canada went to Afghanistan, and friends and family members who were serving in the CF volunteered to serve there, I understood the reasons why. This summer, I decided to become one of them, and when my time comes to wear a uniform, I will do so honourably, and earn the right to have the opinions that I do. This forum, and its links to Ruxted, Milnews and others have opened my eyes considerably to the merits of this one mission, as did my best friend, a Crazy 8 who returned from Operation Medusa with shrapnel in his body from an American Thunderbolt. There are enemies in this world who need to be fought, and places where those enemies cannot be allowed to flourish, and if a Canadian soldier is sent to one of these places, I know that the enemy will lose, countless wrongs will be corrected, children will have new shoes on their feet, meals to eat, clean water to drink and medicines to preserve their lives. Sometimes tragic mistakes are made, but men and women of honour make amends, as the CF does. It is enough for me that my country says to me, " we are doing our best, and we are doing what's right, let us show you how....". 
There are those who don't believe in conflict of any kind, for any reason, and they will never support a military operation anywhere, and showing  the contributions of military operations in Afghanistan are unfathomable to them. Personally, I have always felt that this aversion to aggression was something that our blessed way of life in Canada encouraged. Generations of people have grown up here insulated from war; buses, cafes and markets don't explode in a homicidal fever here, and though we can read about the conflicts in Israel, Lebanon, Beirut, South America and the Middle East, we really don't understand the "Us Vs. Them" mentality that, say, a Hezbollah guerrilla feels. Twenty years ago, I called that being "feminized", that Canadians were growing up soft, too eager to accommodate and open the front door to every passing stranger. I've changed my tone somewhat over the decades, but I don't think much has changed within the general populace. 
Should our involvement in Afghanistan be concluded when I am qualified to serve in a forward operations function, I have little doubt that there will be another place in the world where, if Canadian troops are stationed there, good people will benefit from it. I hope that such a place won't be on Canadian soil, but I expect that it may be sometime in the future. It seems to me that the world is running out of resources. I don't know how much food, water, energy and oil countries like, say, China and Pakistan need over the next twenty years, but it doesn't escape me that Canada has an abundance of those resources, and the unwillingness of our people to fight for anything is a bit disheartening when confronted by the  hungry, thirsty and desperate of the developing world who are lustily eyeing it.


----------



## Mortar guy (23 Aug 2007)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Since you have been doing a lot of research on this topic I was wondering if you could expand on the bolded point and possibly post some links or a bibliography of the materials you've read on the issue. I'm quite interested in this topic as well and any reading material on it would be much appreciated.
> 
> As for the rest its very well written but for the first and second points you don't really back it up with any solid examples on the topics. In the first topic you state that insurgencies have been defeated in the past, but you don't give any examples of it. Also, in the second topic you state that its a showing of ignorance of Afghan history to say that no one has ever won a war in Afghanistan, but again you don't give any points to back that up. I'm not slagging your piece, I think its very well done, but if you want a majority of people to really get it and understand it you need to provide solid examples that people can simply type into google or wikipedia and get a good bit of history on the topic.



Gimpy,

I wrote this in a hurry and didn't want to get into a bibliography but you raise a good point. Here is a quick list of insurgencies that have been defeated:

Malayan Emergency - 1948-1960
Hukbalahap Insurgency (Philippines) 1946-1955
Mau Mau Revolt (Kenya) 1952-1955
Nothern Ireland 1969-2006
Bolivia 1967
Greece 1945-1949

And so on. A couple of good starter books are: _War of the Flea_ by Robert Taber; _From the Barrel of a Gun_ by John Ellis; and _Modern Insurgencies and Counterinsurgencies_ by Ian Beckett.

Afghanistan has been occupied and ruled by various external entinities throughout it's history. In fact, counter to the perception that it is a country that has always resisted foreign occupation, they have been rolled over a few times. Starting with the Macedonians (Alexander the Great) and continuing with the Persians, Arabs, Mongols, Moghuls and even the British, the Afghans have had their share of "guests". I know that the popular understanding is that the Brits lost Afghanistan but in fact, by the Second Afghan War, they had achieved their only real goal for that country. They had established a compliant regime in Kabul and had control over Afghan foreign relations.


A good book on all this is _Afghanistan: A Military History from Alexander the Great to the Fall of the Taliban_ by Stephen Tanner.

Anyway, you're welcome for doing all your research for you!

Wootan-9 (sir) - I know you, Col Noonan and even our friend Albert have been spreading the message far and wide but for whatever reason, the MSM takes absolutely no interest in what you have to say. Maybe it is pure laziness on their part or maybe its because there is a belief that this war is unwinnable so they are uninterested in any information to the contrary.

MG


----------



## GK .Dundas (23 Aug 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> MORTAR GUY
> If you want to keep your fist from being damaged by a TV tube, do NOT watch NewsNet right now
> (Scott Taylor is on there now telling how to avoid IEDs)   :
> EDIT: He's done.  Don't worry, I missed what he was saying!  (well, just heard "blah blah" IED.....blah blah...."insurgency"...)


you just missed his advice ...it's possible you just may saved your own life!


----------



## Mortar guy (23 Aug 2007)

And people wonder why I don't own a TV!

MG


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Aug 2007)

Can only agree with everyone about this being BANG on!



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That said, one of the best pieces yet, and one that I point a lot of folks to is this story reported by CBC's Brian Stewart: Strategic Advisory Team - Afghanistan.



My only humble addition is the transcript to this piece (although you miss the spooky "Law & Order-esque" music during the parts - about 2-3 minutes in - about how "some countries" aren't happy about Canada's perceived influence if you don't watch).


----------



## Quag (23 Aug 2007)

I don't know if anybody feels the same way as I do, but does anyone feel tired of explaining the situation in Afghanistan to people?

Everyone asks, and it gets sickening (and repetitive) knowing how ignorant many of the Canadian citizens are to the current war.

I'm seriously thinking of taking a laidback approach and telling people that I simply do not discuss the war with anyone anymore.

But excellent article, worthy of publishing, and should become a MUST READ for ALL Canadian citizens.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Aug 2007)

Quag said:
			
		

> I don't know if anybody feels the same way as I do, but does anyone feel tired of explaining the situation in Afghanistan to people?
> 
> Everyone asks, and it gets sickening (and repetitive) knowing how ignorant many of the Canadian citizens are to the current war.
> 
> ...



Not me.  I'll keep on explaining it to folks so long as they're still willing to listen.  To have been over there and participated in helping Afghans and not try to help Canadians back here understand what we are achieving would not be responsible, IMO.

Cheers,
G2G


----------



## Quag (23 Aug 2007)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Not me.  I'll keep on explaining it to folks so long as they're still willing to listen.  To have been over there and participated in helping Afghans and not try to help Canadians back here understand what we are achieving would not be responsible, IMO.
> 
> Cheers,
> G2G



Well put...

I've never been, so I can't say much.

I just find it frustrating to try to explain what is happening to people that think that "this can't be a peacekeeping mission if we are dying"...

Oh well....Education is a tool which must not be taken advantage of...


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Aug 2007)

True enough, Quag.  

It can be difficult at times...sometimes it seems as though the message falls on deaf ears.  

I have to say, though, I have had many folks at least consider a bit more deeply what I had to say when I used examples back in Canada about why people do things they do; law enforcement -- the RCMP didn't pack up and stop policing after they lost four officers at Mayerthorpe, firefighters don't stop responding to fires when they lose one of their own in the line of duty.  So too will soldiers continue to do their duty even when comrades fall in combat.  No one of sound mind willingly seeks their own death, but it is understood by all these groups that there are inherent risks to carrying out their duties, and that death is such a risk -- it is exactly the character of the men and women who contribute so greatly to make Canadian society what it is today, that shines through.

G2G


----------



## Quag (23 Aug 2007)

G2G,

That's a refreshing angle to take!

Cheers!


----------



## slowmode (23 Aug 2007)

Great Topic, I will be showing this to a lot of people I know +1


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (23 Aug 2007)

Best. Rant. Ever.

Great job, Mortar guy, and +1 to mover1's suggestion ... get this out there!


----------



## Franky (23 Aug 2007)

Thank You.  I have been battling ignorance here in Quebec..no easy feat...I am just so happy to read it so well put.  My facebook group has been trying to change ideas and spread information and not misinformation. I am just so happy I found this group.  Will post often!


----------



## Flip (23 Aug 2007)

Thanks Mortar Guy!

More rants like this and exposure for them WOULD BE NEWS.

Let's educate the public one hippy at a time  ;D


----------



## Donut (23 Aug 2007)

Post the link to facebook, myspace, blogs, wherever you can.  Word of mouth can get things out pretty far, fast.  there's a reason guerrilla advertising works.

+1, MG.  Best rant ever.

I just wrote CBC and CTV telling them I'm boycotting CBC and their advertisers.

PMT


----------



## Marshall (23 Aug 2007)

Nice article.


----------



## Spencer100 (23 Aug 2007)

Good read. I will point people who question in this direction!


----------



## Franky (23 Aug 2007)

Thanks for the informative post.


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Aug 2007)

Letter to the editor in today’s Wpg Free Press is an example of what Mortar guy was stating:

Leave opinion out of reports 

Reporting the news of the day requires that reporters and editors remain as objective as possible. Beth Gorham's coverage of U.S. affairs for the Canadian Press, especially her reporting on anything concerning President Bush, does not reach the appropriate standard of objectivity. When the Winnipeg Free Press publishes this material, it lowers its own standards of fairness and accuracy. 
In her story on Aug. 23 (Don't repeat Vietnam error), Gorham describes President Bush's speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars as "surprising," without any indication of who was surprised. She calls his comparison of the situation in Iraq to America's experience in Vietnam "stunning," but she never says who was stunned. 
She says that "so many Americans view the conflict as a tragic, unnecessary quagmire that lasted far too long and produced only humiliating defeat." This ignores the growing consensus that a winnable war in Vietnam was undermined by political considerations in the United States. Adding her own emotional reactions and ideology to her report on the event makes it opinion, not news. 
I suggest that the Winnipeg Free Press choose news stories that allow the reader to decide what to think about events, and leave opinion and commentary in the proper place in the publication

BILL RAMBO 
Landmark, MB


----------



## Petard (24 Aug 2007)

Well put MG

I'm on leave right now in the North Bay area, very disheartening to see the results of the very ignorance you are railing against even at the local news level. One more obvious sign or symptom of this is the ever more growing popularity of calling Afghanistan Canada's Vietnam, and then leaving no explanation as to why they even think that way.


----------



## Exarecr (24 Aug 2007)

If this is a rant, you should start writing while you sit on thumb tacks to keep your edge. Ex ellant,informative and makes me wish i had the "spark", to articulate as well as you do. Maybe,just maybe the message is getting out there. The CNE is holding what is expected to be a big Red Friday Rally today,so I am curious to see the turnout.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (24 Aug 2007)

Gimpy:  Mortar Guy has been doing a helluva lot more than "research" on this subject, as I should have thought you would have found obvious had you read the comments following up his posts.  It isn't a college essay or a peer-reviewed article requiring footnoting, fer chrissakes - give us all a break.


----------



## Flip (24 Aug 2007)

Petard,


> Afghanistan Canada's Vietnam,



The perpetrators of sound bite sized nuggets like this one 
 HAVE TO BE CHALLENGED.  

It's easy to smear the government - It's thought to be cool.
You don't need facts. You don't need a better idea.

I see no reason to be level headed or resign myself to it.
I write letters.  ;D  Mortar Guy sure did  ;D

Many people who would vote with withdrawl would do so simply
because they are tired of hearing bad news and don't understand.
People don't like controversy.

How about a sound bite in return?
"Fighting for truth, justice and the Canadian way"
Superman really was a Canadian you know 

WE have to CREATE a narrative that we can ALL be proud of.
MG and Ruxted are well on their way with it.
It has to heard often enough to be recognizable.

OK, sorry for the rant.


----------



## Mortar guy (24 Aug 2007)

Just to add a couple more points because I am still stewing about this one:

5) *The size and nature of our allies' contribution has nothing to do with the size and nature of ours* I know this may sound odd at first but there is a tendency within Canadian MSM to whine about the fact that Canada is taking on an unequal share of the burden in Afghanistan. They invariably trot out numbers and statistics to show that we've taken more casualties or that we only have 7% of NATO's population but we provide 9% of the soldiers to ISAF, etc. To this I say: so what? Who cares how many troops other countries are providing or where they are employing them - all that matters is that we are doing what we can with what we have. Since when did our international committments become tied to an index of other countries' efforts!? Since when did we become the whiny fat kid on the team who faults our teammates for their lack of effort after we'd effectively sat out the entire period known as the Cold War? We are doing what we are doing and contributing what we can contribute because it is a just mission in line with Canadian values and not because we have to make a token effort to appease NATO allies. To me this tendency is miserly, selfish, childish and decidedly un-Canadian.

6) *"We should negotiate with the Taliban"* Wow, what a great idea. I wish we had thought of that earlie... Wait, we did! Much of the "Taliban" that existed in 2001 was co-opted through negotiations and surrenders and many of those Taliban leaders even ran for election in the National Assembly and Provincial elections. Furthermore, there have been ongoing amnesty programs (i.e. Peace Through Strength) for the Taliban and high-level talks were held with the more moderate factions. The fact is that the ones we are fighting now are the ones who will never negotiate. Why the MSM never bothers to look into this whenever some of our brighter politicians suggest we negotiate instead of fight is beyond me.

Anyway, there's now smoke coming out of my ears so I'll stop. It's Friday and I need a beer (or seven). I ask that if you come across any myths or idols out there that are frequently employed by politicians and the media, bring them here and we'll explode them together. Keep fighting the good fight amigos and get the message out there!

MG


----------



## geo (24 Aug 2007)

MG
some good points.  Also, considering the lame contribution Canada provided to NATO throughout the Cold war, it's about time we carried our weight around.

WRT the whining and bellyaching - The Gov't must cop a "mea culpa" on that subject.  I do not think we did a very good job of making Canadians understand what the H we were doing over there and why.


----------



## Gimpy (24 Aug 2007)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Gimpy:  Mortar Guy has been doing a helluva lot more than "research" on this subject, as I should have thought you would have found obvious had you read the comments following up his posts.  It isn't a college essay or a peer-reviewed article requiring footnoting, fer chrissakes - give us all a break.



I don't see a need for you to get so defensive. I read his whole post and all the comments and I made a comment of my own. I didn't ask for extensive footnoting or for it to be a college essay, I merely made a suggestion that for the average Canadian without a great wealth of knowledge on the topic to fully grasp it there should be at least one example that people can just punch into a search engine and get more info. I also asked for his personal suggestions on more reading information on the topic because I read all his posts and since it is clear from his writing he is an expert on the topic I wanted to see what his reading suggestions were so I could do some reading of my own.

If you will refer to this post http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/65476/post-606303.html#msg606303 Mortar Guy himself says that I raise a good point and he gave me plenty of information, so the issue has been taken care of and there is no need to delve further into it.


----------



## pbi (24 Aug 2007)

Mortar Guy: well said. Educating our fellow citizens is an uphill fight, and one that I believe we owe to the dead and their families, if for no other reason. I do it every chance I get, although it is frustrating to watch the eyeballs glaze over as they realize that they (and the "sources" they regard as "truth") actually know little or nothing about the situation there.

To be fair, there has been some excellent, some good and some mediocre reportage. There has also been some crappy reportage, but I bet if you look closely you will find that the real problem is not with in-theatre reporters: they more or less "get it". The real problem IMHO is the commentators, "military experts"  and op-ed columnists (insert name of favourite idiot here) who are longing for total mission failure in Afghanistan so that their pet theories are "proven". These are the folks whose efforts we need to counter. My advice to everybody on this site, especially those of us who have "been over":  write to the editor, immediately, and hit back with facts. Call in to the radio station, with facts. Talk to Joe Toque in the street, or even talk to your idiot in-law who starts spouting off about "bringin' them troops home". Talk, talk, talk. If we don't, who will? The Government?  :

Wootan:good to see you here. I believe we last met when you spoke at CFC. This is a fine site and your input is great value. Too bad some other senior officers can't have a bit more reasonable view about Army.ca.

Cheers


----------



## Nieghorn (24 Aug 2007)

Well written article!  A must read for all Canadians.

I also think there has been some good reportage, but aside from a desire to hear more about the good and not just the deaths, I also wish they'd go to intelligent people when looking for soundbites.  Yes, people can have their opinion, but when it's an uniformed one you only compound the ignorance of other people like them who have formed their opinions without looking at the facts and considering the consequences.

My family is watching the local news, who just showed an online poll saying that 55% of voters think we should get out now.  ... for many reasons this enrages me, but what hurts the most is that these people are saying to me that the lives of the countless innocent Afghanis who'd be murdered by returning Taliban don't matter.  That level of selfishness is one of our major flaws as a priviledged western society.  Consequently, I'm proud to say to the point of choking emotion when I boast that OUR men and women are doing their best to make the lives for these people a little better!


----------



## COBRA-6 (24 Aug 2007)

good rant, keep fighting the good fight buddy!


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Aug 2007)

pbi: Travers, Walkom, Lawrence Martin, Salutin, Scott Taylor, Margolis, Michael Harris, Giggles Taber, Craig Oliver, Michael Byers,

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009975.html

Steve Staples, et al., et al.,...

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/07/time-for-little-non-hysterical-context.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/defence-sole-sourcing.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/10/canadian-defence-spending-compared-to.html

Further suggestions welcome.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Flip (25 Aug 2007)

Further to my point about confronting ignorance:

After I read Christi Blachfords' latest called "Taliban Targets Canadians With
Renewed Vigour" there was the online comments section.

I found this:


> Etienne from Japan writes: "Rome," Lt.-Col. Chamberlain says, "wasn't built in a day, and neither will Afghanistan be."
> 
> Really? I suppose that after 3000 years of demolition derby in Afghanistan, it will be built by G. Bush and a few Canucks?
> 
> Let's get the hell out of there. We have two main tribes in this country and we barely can stand each other. What lessons do we have for the hundreds of groups over there????



I replied: 





> You  wrote: Etienne,
> What lessons do we have for Afghans?
> 1. Women are people too. They have a right to live free and vote.
> Thank a soldier
> ...



I think I got it from somewhere else but you know what I mean.
Confront the stupid.
PLEASE let me know who I've stolen this from - if I have - I can't remember  :-[


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Aug 2007)

Flip: You may be thinking of this:
http://www.ausa.org/webpub/DeptNCOStuff.nsf/byid/CTON-6CFQ9H

It is the Soldier



> It is the soldier, not the reporter,
> who has given us freedom of the press.
> It is the soldier, not the poet,
> who has given us freedom of speech.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## observor 69 (25 Aug 2007)

Living in the GTA I hear the comment "we should just get out" frequently. Then the speaker will look at me quizzically expecting me to confirm this populist view. Unfortunately my conscience won't allow me to jump on and agree.
I don't find it hard via the internet and "good" MSM journalism to be well informed on the battle in Afghanistan. And I don't think it's a sure thing that ISAF can win. I can see the west gradually loosing interest and fading away in a diminishing number of underfunded and under supported projects.
BUT....I do think the battle is worth the fighting. Canada, Britian, the Dutch, Americans and other NATO countries are making their contributions. Some with more commitment than others.
So while Mortar Guy's points are well taken and I repeat I think the battle is a worthy cause and the right thing for the west to be doing my fear is that the mission will fail due to the lack of commitment of troops and treasure as the years go by.
I should add that Pakistan is always a player in this mix of confusing factors affecting mission outcome.

And I think many Canadians also think along these lines as they watch the casualties mount.


----------



## Mortar guy (25 Aug 2007)

pbi - I agree there have been some good reports and good journalists but most times there stories focus on "human interest" themes. By that I mean they talk about the lives of soldiers and their daily experiences rather than the mission's successes. All good stuff but not necessarily focussed on what we need.

Baden Guy - I totally agree about the commitment issue. If ISAF had the same resources that KFOR did when I was there, Afghanistan would probably be a peaceful place right now! Some neat comparisons between ISAF and KFOR:

- In 1999 there were 66,000 troops in KFOR. Kosovo is roughly the same size, and has the same population as Kandahar province!

- Although people say we are throwing lots of money at Afghanistan, that country has received _26 times less_ aid per capita than Kosovo did in 1999-2001.

- Based purely on per capita figures, if the west were to contribute to Afghanistan on the same scale as Kosovo, we would need to base about _1.3 million soldiers_ in the former! And Kosovo was a relatively peaceful theatre with a population wholly supportive of the NATO mission!

Even if we just doubled the size of ISAF we would have a much better chance of success. However, that being said, I don't think all is lost as we are still seeing progress every year.

MG


----------



## stegner (25 Aug 2007)

Mortar Guy,

Just some constructive criticisms that may come up at your thesis defence:

Are soldiers qualified to make strategic assessments-when their training deals exclusively with tactical matters?  Are these decisions not made at levels higher than the officers used to liase with the Afghan population?

What qualifies you as an expert?  How many hearts and minds have you personally won?  

How can you reconcile your argument that the Taliban does not have popular support?  Did they not have popular support prior to October 2001?  Will not the continued support from their Pashtun friends in Pakistan, including some who have powerful positions in the Pakistani Armed Forces and the ISI, ensure that their insurgency movement will remain viable?  

How can Canada do a better job than the Red Army?  After all, they were steam rolling Germans when the Allies were still lollygagging?  How is Canada's position even remarkably superior?  Concrete examples please!


----------



## George Wallace (25 Aug 2007)

stegner

Rather interesting approach you have taken on this site so far.  Perhaps you would be so kind as to let us know a little more about who you are, before you start questioning longtime members of the site on their qualifications.  Right now you have absolutely no profile, no credibility, no credentials, and therefore very little in way of a position to be questioning as you are.

Please enlighten us as to who you really are.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Aug 2007)

stegner said:
			
		

> Are soldiers qualified to make strategic assessments-when their training deals exclusively with tactical matters?  Are these decisions not made at levels higher than the officers used to liase with the Afghan population?



Fact is that it is soldiers who implement political decision and because politics are slow, soldiers have to make policy at time. We can deal with that, its our job.



> What qualifies you as an expert?  How many hearts and minds have you personally won?



What qualifies you to debate him ?



> How can Canada do a better job than the Red Army?  After all, they were steam rolling Germans when the Allies were still lollygagging?  How is Canada's position even remarkably superior?  Concrete examples please!




We arent there to do what the russians did now are we ?  You might have to go back and read history before you comment here


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Aug 2007)

stegner said:
			
		

> How can Canada do a better job than the Red Army?





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> stegner
> 
> Please enlighten us as to who you really are.




Not rushing to judge, but I have a pretty good idea of his position on Afghanistan from this question alone.


----------



## Roy Harding (25 Aug 2007)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Not rushing to judge, but I have a pretty good idea of his position on Afghanistan from this question alone.



Personally - I don't care what his position on Afghanistan is, I like to hear all INFORMED discussion.  

I WOULD like to hear what makes stegner's position INFORMED - along the lines of the questions already asked by George Wallace and CDN Aviator.


----------



## Flip (25 Aug 2007)

As long as his IP address isn't the same as someone already banned, I say inform him!

Actually he can inform himself by reading back through the threads. 
I think all of this has covered before.

If I can learn from ARMY.ca - Anyone can!  ;D 

Besides, for every Stegner, I'm sure there are a dozen or so inquiring minds.

My 2 sheckels ( for what the're worth )

Stegner, As a fellow civvy I would advise you that the Army.ca crowd and the 
military community at large are a pretty bright bunch.
Do not underestimate their intellect or overestimate your own.


----------



## Mortar guy (25 Aug 2007)

stegner said:
			
		

> Mortar Guy,
> 
> Just some constructive criticisms that may come up at your thesis defence:
> 
> ...



stegner - Thanks for the tips and I'll make sure I use your logical, constructive approach if I ever want to seriously tube my thesis defence.

Just for fun, I am going to respond to what can only be described as your comical questions. Not for you but perhaps to benefit others who may visit this site and have similar questions. I know that sounds harsh but you started with a condescending tone so I assume that is your preferred method of communication.

By your first comment, I take it you have no knowledge of how armed forces function and your understanding of strategic policy making is limited to stereotypes (i.e. politicians make the decisions and the dim-witted soldier just does as he's told). Well, unfortunately for your stereotypes, it doesn't quite happen that way. Senior officers in the CF develop strategic policy and provide strategic advice to our government all the time. The Strategic Joint Staff, ADM (Policy) and a host of other organizations that are filled with uniformed members develop much of our policy. Granted, they don't decide on the big items as only Cabinet and Parliament do that, but they do develop, flesh out, refine and implement those policies. In fact, CF officers are damn good at strategic planning simply because we get so much training (at Staff College, for example) and exposure in our careers.

As for my personal qualifications, I am no expert but I do have unique experiences. I wasn't in Afghanistan to "liaise with the Afghan population" but rather was there to assist the Special Economic Advisor to the President (Karzai) with developing a 5-year national development strategy. My work involved meetings with senior government, military, development and IO personnel and in developing long-term plans for rebuilding Afghanistan. Not quite tactical work.

What qualifies me to speak on this topic? Like many on this site, I have dedicated my adult life (and then some) to the study of armed conflict. Do I know everything? No, and I never will. I have spoken only about my personal experiences and my area of knowledge (you should try that some time!) As for your question about how many hearts and minds I've won - watch yourself there. How about you tell us all about your tours overseas and then we'll have a contest to see who's won more hearts and minds.

Again, if you had read my original post you may have picked up on the fact that the Taliban's support comes from a small minority within the Pashtuns (Ghilzai tribe) whereas the other major tribe (Durrani) are far more supportive of the Karzai government - Karzai himself being a Durrani. Prior to October 2001 the Taliban did have some support in the South and East although most people were just relieved to see an end to the lawlessness and fighting that predated their arrival. And don't forget that they weren't popular enough to rule without considerable terror and repression. As for the Pakistanis, while it is true that a small minority support the Taliban, the Army recently launched a Corps-sized offensive in the North-West Frontier Province to take on the Taliban. With friends like that, Mullah Omar sure doesn't need any enemies!

Your last question had me laughing out loud - thanks for that! To simultaneously compare WW II to the current conflict in Afghanistan while suggesting the Red Army is qualitatively better than ours is hilarious. Just so you're aware (in case you have to defend a thesis in the future) WW II happened over 60 years ago and was a 'conventional' war. You're comparing apples to blenders. Have you ever worked with the Soviet/Russian Army? I have - I was responsible for liaison with the Russians at the airport in Kosovo and I can tell you that in every conceivable way (equipment, training, leadership, discipline, morale) our Army is far superior to theirs.

Anyway, thanks for your help. I'm sure you're not one of those people who comes to a site called Army.ca and questions serving members' experience and knowledge using only shaky facts and stereotypes, right. That would be silly, so I look forward to your more thoughtful posts in the future.

MG


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Aug 2007)

Nicely put MG


----------



## stegner (25 Aug 2007)

Sorry MG I am sure you know I meant no offence.  Glad I could be of humour    What is Karzai like-he seems like an interesting dude? Have you read Steve Coll's Ghost Wars?


----------



## muskrat89 (25 Aug 2007)

stegner - are you here for any particular purpose? 

Army.ca Staff


----------



## DualCore (26 Aug 2007)

So what is the Action Plan?

I re-submit my proposal from months ago.

Cut $100 Million from the budget of the CBC and fund an hour a day on TV, and 2 pages a day in the newspaper (and all the reporters and editors and such to produce that amount of content) to report on the Military, Foreign Affairs, etc.  The CBC has failed in this profound responsibility, and thus it needs to be removed and implemented elsewhere.  

When there is a proper responsible source of information, then the "licensed monopolies", "subsidized", and other follower branches of the media who take their direction from the CBC will have to catch up, and the quality of the discussion will be dramatically increased.  And Canadians may even learn the name of one more Canadian soldier after Dallaire, Mackenzie, and our greatest ever General ... Douglas MacArthur (that is sarcasm, in case anyone thinks of pointing out the error).


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Aug 2007)

The CBC isn't entirely hopeless...I actually don't mind where Brian Stewart has been going, recently...

from earlier in the thread:



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...That said, one of the best pieces yet, and one that I point a lot of folks to is *this story reported by CBC's Brian Stewart: Strategic Advisory Team - Afghanistan*.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Aug 2007)

stegner said:
			
		

> Sorry MG I am sure you know I meant no offence.  Glad I could be of humour    *What is Karzai like-he seems like an interesting dude? Have you read Steve Coll's Ghost Wars?*


This is the best response you could muster for the comments regarding your use of flawed stereotype in lieu of informed discussion and/or profile questions put to you?  :  

Mods, is the Cadet Forum full?

JM
_Mindlessly drudging away in Afghanistan, happily bareft of operational or strategic thought_


----------



## Franko (26 Aug 2007)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Mods, is the Cadet Forum full?
> 
> JM
> _Mindlessly drudging away in Afghanistan, happily bareft of operational or strategic thought_



There's always room for more. Take a break JM....go to the Green Bean in KAF at your first opportunity and have a Chai latte on me.     

Regards


----------



## KevinB (26 Aug 2007)

Great read, a sad sick point that it takes this sort of rant to make a point to the Cdn public.
  
I would say that most of Army.ca gets it, but outside in the MainStreet media -  :brickwall:


----------



## Flip (26 Aug 2007)

There's the challenge, Infidel6

Create a narrative composed of sound bites.
Simple thoughts - from the authority of experience.

Take MGs thesis and edit it into nice little bite sized chunks.
you know ....so that civvies like me understand. ;D

Any Individual writing a book is only good for about a month
 of public attention span.

An Anthology with many contributions would be more credible than 
Gwynn Dyer, Scott Taylor, or Eric Margolis 

Stegner, Atlas and countless, nameless others who browse really
need to dig to find truth. If they don't find it easily the movie plot
in their head takes over.(A combination of Apocalypse Now and Black Hawk Down)

If information is easy - then the media can co-opt it for their own use.
If information is abstract - the media will follow their world view.

Maybe we should appoint an Editor in Chief.......


----------



## Mortar guy (26 Aug 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Maybe we should appoint an Editor in Chief.......



You mean Edward?

 ;D


----------



## Flip (26 Aug 2007)

I was initially thinking of recruiting someone from media.........

but........ ;D

Yes, why not?

How do you feel about that Edward?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Aug 2007)

AHEM!
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/64695.0.html


----------



## Flip (26 Aug 2007)

Thanks Bruce,

Ruxted is an excellent source but a bit academic.

What I would propose is a series of 100 to 300 word essays by 
ARMY.ca members each supporting a single one line 105mm point.

The essays could be peer reviewed and individual essays could be used to support or
replace another. Perhaps submissions could be author edited after peer review.

The list of points becomes our "sound bite" narrative.

The media depend on witness accounts - filter - and publish.
Why not cut out the filter phase?


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Thanks Bruce,
> 
> Ruxted is an excellent source but a bit academic.
> 
> ...



You should read Army.ca a little more often.  There is much you are missing.  Try reading this Call for papers?.


----------



## Flip (26 Aug 2007)

Thanks George!

How did I miss that? 

Perhaps If I read more and post less....Hmmm


----------



## observor 69 (30 Aug 2007)

Afghan opium production mocks our counterinsurgency efforts

JEFFREY SIMPSON 

August 28, 2007

Yes, as our media keep reminding us, our soldiers in Afghanistan are "heroes," men and women doing a difficult, dangerous and sometimes fatal job. They are undoubtedly doing the best they can, but, through no fault of their own, that best cannot be good enough.

Good enough to stop the insurgency in Kandahar and other parts of southern Afghanistan. Good enough to keep the Taliban at bay. Good enough to leave in 2009 with security assured and reconstruction under way in that corner of this post-medieval country.

Yesterday, the impossibility of this self-defined mission - as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is executing it - became even clearer with the latest report from the United Nations about opium production in Afghanistan.

Ever since the United States toppled the Taliban, and ever since NATO took nominal control of the mission, poppy eradication has been high on the list of priorities for reform. After all, it fuels the Taliban insurgency. Shutting down that source of money, therefore, conforms to one rule among many of counterinsurgency: Starve the insurgents of support.
 Within NATO's division of labour, the British are supposed to be in charge of poppy eradication. Yet, the biggest upsurge in poppy production has occurred in Helmand province, where more than 7,000 British soldiers are based. The poppies are proliferating under the very noses of the eradicators.

Of course, the Americans with their anti-drug crusading spirit are doing most of the work. Predictably, they are failing. The funniest picture of the month was a Holstein cow the Americans had brought to an agricultural show being looked at by bemused locals. Wisconsin meets Kabul.

Antonio Costa, executive director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, reported yesterday that "Afghanistan's opium production has reached a frighteningly high level, twice the amount produced just two years ago." Apart from 19th-century China, "no other country in the world has ever produced narcotics on such a deadly scale."

Afghanistan is a narco-state. It produces 93 per cent of the world's opium. Nothing NATO has done, and nothing it proposes to do, will change this fact, except at the margin.

The insurgents, therefore, will continue to be well-financed from the proceeds of the opium trade, and corruption will continue to be rife in the Afghan government, some of whose members are directly involved in production and trafficking. Official corruption, of course, turns citizens against the very government that Canadians and other NATO countries are trying to help.

As long as NATO keeps trying to eradicate the trade - which brings farmers far more income that growing wheat or other crops - the mission will chase its tail. A useful command is: When failing, stop digging - meaning rethink the entire policy (as Canada's Greens propose) by creating a domestic market to supervise growing and purchasing. Nobody in authority, including the UN, thinks that way. So the digging continues.

Tactically, Canadian "heroes" are doing what they can. Strategically, they are part of a wider mission defying basic rules of counterinsurgency warfare.

Starving the insurgents is one rule, one that is being mocked by the drug trade. Sealing the border is another rule, mocked by the porous Afghan-Pakistani border across which insurgents (and drugs) flow with almost unimpeded impunity.

Having enough boots on the ground is another rule, mocked by the relative paucity of NATO troops and the unwillingness of most NATO partners to put their soldiers in harm's way. With too few troops, air power is too often used, with collateral civilian casualties.

These casualties contribute to mocking another counterinsurgency rule: that the battle is for the support of the local population. Foreign aid, including Canadian, is undoubtedly useful in this fight, but there isn't enough of it. How could there ever be enough in one of the world's poorest countries?

We are told, and rightly so, that we must "finish the mission," that Canada cannot "cut and run," that our men and women make the country proud. All of which is true but beside the point: The mission, however defined, is defying too many basic rules of counterinsurgency. Without a series of NATO course corrections, bravery alone will not bring strategic victory.

jsimpson@globeandmail.com

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20070828.COSIMP28/TPStory/Comment


----------



## Simon (30 Aug 2007)

This is a great article, Ive passed it on to many with great review.


----------

