# The Manley Panel on Afghanistan



## kilekaldar (12 Oct 2007)

WTF is this? A Joke? What exactly qualifies these people to render judgment? Do they have any expertise or first hand experience of military affairs, counter-insurgency, nation building, humanitarian aid, training of police, routing out of government corruption, rebuilding essential services, or of anything we are trying to do in Afghanistan? Have they spend any amount of time there? Do they know anything about the country? Could they find Kandahar on a map?

If you're going to do this, why the hell not get some actual SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS?


PM to announce panel on Afghanistan: CTV
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071011/afghanistan_panel_071011/20071011?hub=TopStories

Updated Thu. Oct. 11 2007 10:07 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will announce on Friday a five-person panel of prominent Canadians who will be tasked with coming up with a consensus on Canada's future role in Afghanistan, CTV has learned.

Insiders told CTV that Harper wants to take the partisanship out of the Afghanistan mission that has divided the country, especially as the death toll has risen over the past two years.

The panel will come up with options on the role Canada should play in the war-torn nation after the combat mission ends in February 2009.

The panel of high-profile Canadians is expected to include:

    * Former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley
    * Derek Burney, Canada's former ambassador to Washington and former chief of staff to Brian Mulroney
    * Respected broadcaster Pamela Wallin, who was Canadian consul general in New York
    * Former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister Jake Epp
    * Paul Tellier, former Clerk of the Privy Council and former president and CEO of Canadian National Railway and Bombardier 

The panel may consider whether to withdraw or significantly reduce combat troops and replace them with CF-18 fighter jets at Kandahar airfield as the French are doing.

Other options would be for Canadian troops to solely train the Afghan army or play a role in aid and reconstruction.

Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre, who has accused the Conservative government of ignoring his requests to join an official tour of Afghanistan, recently visited Kandahar on an unauthorized visit.

The Conservatives have accused Coderre of staging a stunt, while the Liberal MP accuses the government of overplaying successes in Afghanistan.

During his visit, Coderre reinforced his party's position that Canada's Afghan combat mission must come to an end when the current mandate expires in February 2009. The Liberals have pledged to vote against the Conservative government's plan to extend the mission.

Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, who also visited the war-ravaged country recently with International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda, said Canada is committed to its mission in Afghanistan and will continue developing the nation.

Afghanistan Prime Minister Hamid Karzai has personally called on Canadians to continue the fight, saying his country will fall back into anarchy if they don't.

With a report from CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife


----------



## dapaterson (12 Oct 2007)

To the contrary, we've got an ambassador and a former consul-general to the US who can provide useful insight into that bilateral relationship and what impacts Canada's actions could have on that relationship; there's a former Parliamentarian (who served with the Liberals - a fine way to further split that party ,regardless of what the panel's verdict is); a Tory to balance out the equation and keep the rest of the party happy, and a respected Canadian businessman.

They, no doubt, will talk with DFAIT, DND and CF representatives... there are much worse ways to examine options and determine policy that this.


----------



## Allen (12 Oct 2007)

I'm sure these 5 won't just have a kaffeeklatsch in a closed room and decide between them what to do. In all likelihood they will interview many experts who will inform their recommendations - kind of like a parliamentary subcommittee.


----------



## GK .Dundas (12 Oct 2007)

Yeah we are talking real heavyweights here make no mistake about it! I 'd be very interested in what they might think .
 Just had another thought a lot of us (me included) have complained here and elsewhere that the Government could very well loose this war simply because they haven't been able to get this message out to the people in an articulate manner. Simply put we have to make people understand why we are there and what we risk by failing. (pulling out before Afghanistan is ready to stand on it's own feet.)
 This panel may very well be the best way to do just that!


----------



## SweetNavyJustice (12 Oct 2007)

I think that it goes without saying, although it is important to note that we work for the government and do their bidding.  A panel of five ex-political figures who have experience representing Canadians, and who have in their own way, served Canada are in a good position to debate, discuss, and make recommendations concerning whether we as the CF should remain in AF, and if we are to stay, what our role should be.  

If anything, I hope that it demonstrates (at least to some degree) that the government is looking for an intelligent dialog on the subject, and this will hopefully go some distance toward satisfying some of the detractors.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Oct 2007)

Not entirely surprising - this wouldn't be the first issue where the feds, in a minority position and facing a contentious issue, has asked a special representative, envoy or panel to look at things instead of deciding right away.

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

*Manley to lead Afghan mission review*
DANIEL LEBLANC, Globe & Mail, 12 Oct 07
Article link

OTTAWA — The Harper government will appoint former Liberal heavyweight John Manley today to a five-person panel to decide on the future of Canada's presence in Afghanistan after the 2009 deadline for the current mission expires, sources said last night.

The surprise appointment comes a few days before Prime Minister Stephen Harper lays out his plan for the next sitting of Parliament in a Speech from the Throne in which the future of the Afghan mission will be a major component.

The Throne Speech will be a confidence matter and the minority government's stand on its military mission in the war-torn country will be key to its survival.

All parties have attacked the Conservative government on the issue this year, and government officials said the goal in naming a five-member panel is to develop a “non-partisan” consensus on the matter.

Mr. Manley's decision to accept the nomination on the panel will shock many Liberals, who are struggling to come up with a plan for the mission, which they launched when they were in office.

In addition to the former Liberal minister of finance and industry, the multipartite panel will include:

- long-time broadcaster Pamela Wallin, whom the former Liberal government appointed as Canada's representative to New York;

- Canada's former ambassador to Washington, Derek Burney, who was Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney's chief of staff;

- former clerk of the Privy Council Paul Tellier; and

- former Conservative health minister Jake Epp.

Sources said the panel will receive its terms of reference Friday. The members are expected to travel to Afghanistan and report to Mr. Harper in a few months on the best mix of military power, diplomacy and development aid for the country.

The Afghan issue has been one of the most divisive in Ottawa in recent times.

The NDP is calling for an immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan, while the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party want an end to the “combat mission” after the commitment to NATO in Kandahar ends in 16 months.

The Conservatives are pushing for an extended presence of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, while promising that Parliament will have the final word.

The two main parties in the House have been attacking one another on Afghanistan all week. Liberal MP Denis Coderre travelled to Kandahar by himself and criticized the Conservatives throughout his journey.

Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier took the brunt of the attacks over his statement that the situation in Kandahar is improving, despite reports to the contrary.

One federal official dismissed Mr. Coderre's trip as a “big stunt” last night and said the goal of the panel is to come up with a consensus. The panel is looking at all options, and its recommendations will be put before MPs for a final vote.

“Ultimately, Parliament will decide,” the senior official said.

Sources said accepting the chairmanship of the panel was a hard decision for Mr. Manley, given his long-standing Liberal affiliation, but that when the call came from the Prime Minister, it was difficult to turn down.

The committee is one of the most high-powered groups to be assembled in the capital in a long time. Mr. Mulroney, who is so closely connected to three of its members, is a strong supporter of the Afghan mission.

The Liberals seemed unaware last night of Mr. Harper's initiative or Mr. Manley's appointment.

Mr. Harper's past nomination of Liberal MP Wajid Khan as an adviser on the Middle East created much unease in the Liberal caucus, and Mr. Khan subsequently switched to the Conservatives.


----------



## GAP (12 Oct 2007)

Now, no matter what is decided, Harper is not to blame....it's the panel and parliment. Great position to be in going into an election.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Oct 2007)

This just in:

*PRIME MINISTER HARPER ANNOUNCES INDEPENDENT ADVISORY PANEL ON AFGHAN MISSION*
Prime Minister's Office, 12 Oct 07
Statement link

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced the creation of the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan. The panel’s role will be to advise Parliament on options for the mission after the current mandate ends in February, 2009. 

“I am pleased to announce the formation of an independent panel of eminent Canadians who will consider our options and provide expert
non-partisan advice that will help parliamentarians make our decision,” said the Prime Minister.

Chaired by former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs John Manley, the panel will examine four main options, while not
excluding others:

1. Continue training the Afghan army and police so Canada can begin withdrawing its forces in February 2009;
2. Focus on reconstruction and have forces from another country take over security in Kandahar;
3. Shift Canadian security and reconstruction effort to another region in Afghanistan;
4. Withdraw all Canadian military except a minimal force to protect aid workers and diplomats.

The panel, which is to report to the Prime Minister and the Canadian public at the end of January 2008, is expected to conduct its
deliberations while keeping in mind the sacrifices Canadians have made to date in Afghanistan, the potential for deterioration in security and development, Canada’s obligations to NATO and the United Nations, and the implications for Canada’s international reputation. 

In addition to Mr. Manley, the panel includes former federal Cabinet Minister Jake Epp, former Clerk of the Privy Council Paul Tellier,
former Canadian Ambassador to the United States Derek Burney, and Pamela Wallin, former Canadian Consul General in New York City.

“These individuals represent a wealth of experience in foreign affairs and each one of them has demonstrated their commitment to Canada through years of public service,” said Prime Minister Harper. “I have no doubt they will examine the issues honestly, fairly, and expertly, and offer wise, impartial counsel that will help Parliamentarians and all Canadians choose the right course for Canada in Afghanistan.”
  _____  

_- edited to add link -_


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2007)

It is (maybe) interesting that this is the second time Manley and Epp have worked together. They were members of Ontario Premier McGuinty’s energy review (2003/2004).

Burney and Tellier have had distinguished careers in government and business.

Wallin has parlayed a successful career in TV journalism into a succession of political/diplomatic and academic appointments. (It’s not really clear to me that she brought much, other than an unswerving loyalty to Jean Chrétien and considerable popularity/celebrity to these posts.) The other four (Burney, Epp, Manley and Tellier) have certainly earned the 'eminent' adjective. All-in-all, it's a good panel for a contentious issue.

I have no doubt that Prime Minister Harper’s main motivation is to partially defuse the Afghanistan issue in the run up to a possible 2007 election – and, as a bonus, to embarrass the Liberals by having Manley and Wallin, especially, on the panel (Tellier’s career was much advanced by Pierre Trudeau (Mulroney made him Clerk but emasculated him by bringing Dalton Camp into the PCO as his (Mulroney’s) personal deputy minister).

But, with John Manley in charge I expect:

1. A clear, concise, unbiased and soundly reasoned report - considering *what’s best for Canada*;

2. A timely report, too.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2007)

I am with those that think this group has the credentials, and the credibility, to get beyond the partisanship.

And they might just be able to come up with a few more wrinkles in the way the "ground" situation manifests itself as well as the domestic situation.

I see this as a very good move.


----------



## Flip (12 Oct 2007)

It actually appears to be a rather shrewd move on the PMs part.

We know that there is no way to get a "consensus" in Parliament.
We don't want an election - much less one triggered by this issue.
Short of sending all Canadians to school on the issue - what else works?

Dion and Layton have staked out ridiculous and dangerous positions.
They would apparently oppose the changing of the seasons if the 
government was in favour.

Here's five wise people and we'll take their advise.
Not do as they dictate - Take their advise.

Seems reasonable to me.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Oct 2007)

If the role we would like to have for ourselves ("by concensus") happens to be one that is already filled or is not wanted, I wonder whether we'll continue filling the useful role we already have (by default) or pull out.  Kandahar was what was left after the other kids got first pick while we were deciding whether to play - or do I misremember?

I always like to approach difficult problems by asking "What must I do, and in what order?" rather than "What would I like to do right now?".


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Oct 2007)

And, at no extra charge, the PM's speaking notes (and en francais if you prefer):

PLEASE CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

Good morning ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for joining us for an important announcement regarding Canada’s mission in Afghanistan.

As I have long said, our government believes that military deployments abroad should be subject to parliamentary approval.

That’s why, last year, we put the extension of our military commitment to Afghanistan to a parliamentary vote.

A majority of MPs in the House of Commons agreed to extend the mission through February 2009.

That mandate ends roughly 16 months from now, and as we move toward a decision on Canada’s role beyond February 2009, our government wants a full, open and informed debate about our options.

Given what’s at stake – both for our troops and for the Afghan people – we also want the debate to be as non-partisan as possible.

To that end, today I am pleased to announce the formation of an independent panel of eminent Canadians who will consider our options and provide expert non-partisan advice that will help parliamentarians make our decision.

The panel will be chaired by the Honourable John Manley, Canada’s former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs.

His panel will consist of:

Derek Burney, former Canadian Ambassador to the United States;

Former Canadian Consul General in New York City, Pamela Wallin;

The distinguished Montreal business executive as well as a former Clerk of the Privy Council, Paul Tellier; and

The Honourable Jake Epp, former federal Cabinet Minister and current chair of Health Partners International, a non-profit organization that is providing medical aid to Afghanistan

I want to thank all these people for agreeing to take on this important task.

Collectively, they represent a wealth of experience in foreign affairs, and each has demonstrated his or her commitment to Canada through years of public service.

I have asked the panel to examine four main options for the future of the Afghanistan mission, although they may consider others. 

Option one is to continue training the Afghan army and police with the goal of creating self-sufficient indigenous security forces in Kandahar province so Canadian troops can start withdrawing in February 2009.

Option two is to focus on reconstruction in Kandahar, which would require some other country or countries to take over our security role.

Option three is to shift Canadian security and reconstruction efforts to another region of Afghanistan.

And option four is to withdraw all Canadian military forces after February 2009 except a small contingent to provide security for our remaining aid workers and diplomats.

As the panel considers these options, I have asked them to keep the following considerations in mind.

Whatever future path we choose in Afghanistan, it must respect the sacrifices Canadians have made there.

We have made considerable progress in improving the lives of the Afghan people, at great expense to our troops and our treasury.

We must also be cognizant of the risk of a return to chaos in Afghanistan, and of the potential regional and international implications.

We must also bear in mind our obligations to the United Nations and our NATO allies.

And, of course, whatever direction we choose, it must consider the implications for Canada’s international reputation.

I appreciate, John, that we are asking a lot of you, but I have every confidence you will examine the issues honestly, fairly and expertly, and that your wise counsel will help parliamentarians choose the right course.

We look forward to receiving your report by the end of January 2008. 

On behalf of the government, and of Canadians, thank you all once again.  

And now over to you, John.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2007)

kilekaldar said:
			
		

> WTF is this? A Joke? What exactly qualifies these people to render judgment? Do they have any expertise or first hand experience of military affairs, counter-insurgency, nation building, humanitarian aid, training of police, routing out of government corruption, rebuilding essential services, or of anything we are trying to do in Afghanistan? Have they spend any amount of time there? Do they know anything about the country? Could they find Kandahar on a map?
> ...



See my earlier comment, but: Manley, Burney and Tellier have more _strategic_ smarts that pretty much everyone in DND, Minister and CDS included, combined. Manley, Burney and Tellier are at least as able, in every respect, as MacKay, Fonberg and Hillier.

One of the many problem with the Canadian Forces, and I say this respectfully and after more than 35 years of service as a soldier and officer, is that most of its members, including most of the most senior officers, are ill equipped to make strategic judgements and too many (all ranks) are just plain, dirty-dog ignorant.

Hands up: all those who don't know who Fonberg is!


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (12 Oct 2007)

I think it's a very shrewd move, especially the appointment of an A list Liberal as the head of the panel. We all know that the list of candidates for the last Liberal leadership campaign was made up of the B list. Mr Manley is probably the leader the Libs should have had .He shrewdly decided not to run after the ADSCAM debacle as he knew they were headed for the wilderness...and who wants to be leader in the wilderness. I think the PM has cut Dion off at the knees by appointing a Liberal who is way more competant than Dion and will likely make most Canadians realize that too. He's also undercut the criticism that could come if he unilaterally recommitted us to more time in Afk by showing that it's a studied decision one way or the other. Absolutely brilliant move.


----------



## observor 69 (12 Oct 2007)

OK, OK I give....It is a panel of smart people who will have their final decision/recommendations listened to and respected.

My only question is: In the entire body of Canadian government employees, Foreign Affairs, Privy Council, military and many other senior bodies does there not already exist individuals hired to do this job of higher level analysis? 
 Again I repeat, yes this august body of appointees is certainly qualified to produce a thoughtful document but is their not an element of political cover on Harper's part?


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> OK, OK I give....It is a panel of smart people who will have their final decision/recommendations listened to and respected.
> 
> My only question is: In the entire body of Canadian government employees, Foreign Affairs, Privy Council, military and many other senior bodies does there not already exist individuals hired to do this job of higher level analysis?
> Again I repeat, yes this august body of appointees is certainly qualified to produce a thoughtful document but is their not an element of political cover on Harper's part?



I think it's about ⅔ political cover and ⅓ good thinking.

I think Harper is less than thrilled with the strategic thinking in DFAIT and DND and I suspect that PCO (which should be _*leading*_* the strategic thinking) is preoccupied with other, equally pressing but much less visible issues, including, I fear serious internal security threats posed by ethnic/racial/religious groups in Canada – threats based on home-grown and imported grievances.

As to the cover: if there’s an election based on the Throne Speech then he has, effectively, neutralized the Duceppe/Dion/Layton attack potential on that front. If there is no election then he goes to the House with a motion, based on the report of these five ”eminent Canadians” and the Liberals, anyway, are almost obliged to fall into line. 

It looks to me like good politics all the way ‘round and it may result in good policy, too, says I, still shamelessly hyping Ruxted’s positions.


Edit: embarrassing typo Rusted's Ruxted's     :-[*


----------



## Dale Denton (12 Oct 2007)

I watched the news report online and found a phone interview with Taliban Jack ;D He somehow managed to mention the Kyoto Protocol :brickwall:


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Oct 2007)

Excerpts from an article Mr Manley just published following a visit to Afstan in May this year as a director of CARE Canada:
http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/oct07/manley.pdf



> What became very plain to me, however, was that there is *no possible way to separate* [emphasis added] the development or humanitarian mission from the military one. There can be no meaningful progress on development without an improved security environment. This can   only exist if the institutions of rule of law can be established and the government of Afghanistan can succeed in establishing a welcome presence in more regions of the country.
> 
> Whenever we asked Afghans what they thought ISAF or Canada should do, they did not hesitate to say that *we must stay* [emphasis added]. Without the presence of the international forces, chaos would surely ensue.
> 
> ...



Amen.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Journeyman (12 Oct 2007)

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> *...a phone interview with Taliban Jack ;D He somehow managed to mention the Kyoto Protocol* :brickwall:


Merely a desperate attempt to jump on the bandwagon of Al Gore getting the Nobel Peace Prize (WTF ???) for his anti-global warming efforts. Not even remotely related to the topic at hand. As such:
Too little
Too late
Typical NDP irrelevance


----------



## observor 69 (12 Oct 2007)

We've been talking about this topic for a few hours now and nobody has mentioned Manley's famous comment on defence spending.  ;D

"Spending on defence and security
do not rate very highly in opinion
polls (and development aid even less
so). The results of such spending are
not very visible to most Canadians.
But we love to talk about sovereignty,
about how we punch above our weight
in the world. Well, it’s time to pay. As
I’ve said before, we can’t sit at the G8
table and when the waiter arrives with
the bill, excuse ourselves to go to the
washroom. We’ve been doing just that,
and trading in our Pearsonian reputation
rather than fulfilling the Pearsonian vision."

http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/may04/manley.pdf

Edit spelling "defence."  :-[


----------



## wade.w (12 Oct 2007)

I don't know anything about these people, I am sure they are as brilliant as everyone has stated. 
I am also pretty fascinated at everyone applauding Harpers political move...
My own gut reaction is this, Harper (and company) wants us to stay in Afghanistan till we are told to go home, (which will be *never* because I am pessimistic like that.) this panel is going to arrange just that. (_The Provers Prove what the Thinkers Think._) I am *confident* that we will be there far beyond 2009. 
 I am also not entirely sure how a business man is out for Canadians (*our*) best interest.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2007)

wade.w said:
			
		

> I don't know anything about these people ...



Here's a bit of info:

John Manley - http://www.nortel.com/corporate/exec/manley.html

Derek Burney - http://www.cdfai.org/fellows/derekburney.htm

Jake Epp - http://www.tyndale.ca/view.php?id=120

Paul Tellier - http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=clerk&Sub=FormerClerks&doc=FormerClerks1985-1992_e.htm

Pamela Wallin - http://www.uoguelph.ca/mediarel/2007/03/post_34.html


----------



## wade.w (12 Oct 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here's a bit of info:
> 
> John Manley - http://www.nortel.com/corporate/exec/manley.html
> 
> ...



Thank you.

I looked over them all, and the only person I really like and felt good about is Pamela Wallin.  I think she is the only one who is truly going into this with my best interests at heart.   Paul Tellier also seemed like a decent guy, although, I do not know any of the details regarding the positions he has held. 

Manley and Burney evoke the word MONEY in my mind and it really makes me wonder if they have my best interest at heart.  Same with Epp,  The thing about Epp that irks me the most is the fact that he appears to be an evangelical christian.  I am scared to imagine what he thinks about (or how much he hates)  Moslems, and this alone really makes me question if he is clear headed enough to have my best interests at heart regarding our presence and actions in a Moslem country.


----------



## GAP (12 Oct 2007)

Jake Epp is Mennonite


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2007)

Wade:

I see that you are a recently joined member of the CF. Still waiting to get to St-Jean for BMQ.

I sincerely hope that you joined for a life of service and not for a bit of trades training.  Something about the tone of your posts suggests the latter.

While the welfare of soldiers is always a consideration "Men" fall behind "Mission" in the Mission-Men-Machine-Myself order of things.  When you joined you were putting yourself at the disposal of the Government of the Day who make decisions based on National Interest, not on your best interests.

These men and women have more than enough collective experience and worth to make a thorough appreciation of the situation and then come up with suitable, credible recommendations.  They are at least as credible as the nameless grey suits in the Civil Service.  And, like Caesar's Wife, they are seen.

In the meantime I hope your wait for St-Jean is not too long and that you enjoy your term of service when you get there.

Cheers.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Oct 2007)

wade.w said:
			
		

> a Moslem country.



?


----------



## wade.w (12 Oct 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> ?


  my mistake, 

*the democratically elected government of Afghanistan... 



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Wade:
> 
> I see that you are a recently joined member of the CF. Still waiting to get to St-Jean for BMQ.
> 
> ...



If I was interested in the trades training and not the service, I would have opted to get my trades training paid for at a college. 
I was just sharing my opinion, I guess I should probably learn to keep my opinion to myself.  Also, sometimes I find it  difficult to gauge the tone of someone, and even the values of someone when expressed through a keyboard.  
 I _understand_ that soldiers are used for the *national interests* by the government of the day....  I was talking about the welfare of the Canadian people.  I was simply questioning if these people really do have our (Canadian citizens) best interest at heart...    and like I said, I have a good feeling about one maybe two of them.   Where as I think the other two could *possibly* have their priorities for big business (money over people) instead of the Canadian people, and the other guy simply scares me because *I think* he might consider his self a warrior for _christ_...  to some that might not seem like a bad thing, but to me it does because _they_ believe in the end of the world.   I don't want it to be a self fulfilling prophecy...  

This is just how I feel.  _My opinion isn't worth anything. _
 I signed up to serve my country and that is exactly what I plan on doing.   If I have to have the exact same opinion as every other serving member I will just keep my mouth shut. smile and nod...
next time I won't share my opinion. 
 i will just smile and nod.  

In conclusion I just shared my gut feeling on this topic, and my opinion on the people within the panel, something that wasn't broadcast on CBC.
(edit: I am also aware that my opinion is more likely then not, _uninformed_.  I don't claim to believe what I say is 100% fact. it is what it is, an opinion. _ take it for what it's worth_.  I don't consider myself to be a completely informed person...I am not yet that sure of myself... *now I am thinking about the stance of people on the gay marriage issue... hahahaha )


----------



## aesop081 (12 Oct 2007)

wade.w said:
			
		

> my mistake,
> 
> *the democratically elected government of Afghanistan...







			
				wade.w said:
			
		

> a Moslem country.



I was just wondering what a "moslem" country was


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2007)

wade.w said:
			
		

> ... I was talking about the welfare of the Canadian people.  I was simply questioning if these people really do have our (Canadian citizens) best interest at heart...    and like I said, I have a good feeling about one maybe two of them.   Where as I think the other two could *possibly* have their priorities for big business (money over people) instead of the Canadian people, and the other guy simply scares me because *I think* he might consider his self a warrior for _christ_...  to some that might not seem like a bad thing, but to me it does because _they_ believe in the end of the world.   I don't want it to be a self fulfilling prophecy...
> 
> This is just how I feel.  _My opinion isn't worth anything. _
> I signed up to serve my country and that is exactly what I plan on doing.   If I have to have the exact same opinion as every other serving member I will just keep my mouth shut. smile and nod...
> ...



Don't be too thin skinned. Your opinions and _gut feelings_ are just as good as those held by anyone else.

It is hard to communicate through a keyboard. I think Kirkhill was offering some advice as an older to younger person, nothing more. I'm much older than he and my counsel, for what little it's worth, is: think for youself. Don't be afraid to express and opinion. Equally: don't be afraid of criticism (constructive and otherwise) and learn from it if you can.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Oct 2007)

and believe you me...you will get alot of critisism on BMQ. Your opinion, however, wont be as welcome as it is here  ;D


----------



## wade.w (12 Oct 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I was just wondering what a "moslem" country was



It can be spelt Moslem or Muslim.   I have read papers where it was typed out as Moslem. 

edit: i typed of instead of or.   (also, check back on my last post, I edited it and added another couple sentences.)


----------



## aesop081 (12 Oct 2007)

wade.w said:
			
		

> It can be spelt Moslem or Muslim.   I have read papers where it was typed out as Moslem.



Roger that, thanks i didnt know it could be both.


I dont, however, understand this response from you to my orininal "?"



			
				wade.w said:
			
		

> my mistake,
> 
> *the democratically elected government of Afghanistan...


----------



## wade.w (12 Oct 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Roger that, thanks i didnt know it could be both.
> 
> 
> I dont, however, understand this response from you to my orininal "?"


well, aren't they both? a Moslem country as well as a democratically elected?  I figured you wanted me to say that they are democratically elected.


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 Oct 2007)

In the bad old days one used "Mohammetan" (else "Mohammedan"):
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/nael/18century/topic_4/pitts.htm

Neat stuff about Islamic slavery at the link above.  See also:

Captives: Britain, Empire, and the World, 1600-1850
http://www.amazon.ca/Captives-Britain-Empire-World-1600-1850/dp/0385721463/ref=sr_1_2/702-0026520-6262474?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192242748&sr=1-2

Then there's "Mussalman", often used by those speaking English in British India:

"The Mussulmans are not a Minority. The Mussulmans are a nation by any definition."
http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/69.html

Apparently from Turkish:
http://www.answers.com/topic/mussulman

But maybe Persian:
http://www.learn-persian.com/english/List_of_English_words_of_Persian_origin.php

Without further research I'd go for Persian since it was the court, government, and cultural language in much of India during the couple of centuries in which the British had their most prolonged exposure to Muslims.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CF_Enthusiast (12 Oct 2007)

Off-topic much?


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2007)

Wade - that business of not being able to detect tone through the keyboard cuts both ways.  

Edward's points are well taken by both of us.

Your opinion does count.  I value it as much as anyone else's.  Just be prepared to defend a position once you take it.  Not everybody is going to agree with you.  Or me for that matter.

I am glad that you are in it for the service.  And I thank you for that.

As to the panel itself I think that the primary benefit of a panel like this is that they can speak to a variety of communities within Canada.  Individually they have got solid "followings" within particular groups of people but they are respected beyond those groups.  So if they speak collectively they will be speaking to a broad cross-section of the Country.  Hopefully in a persuasive manner.  

And that is something that a number of people, especially around this board, have been looking forward to for a very long time.

It is unfortunate but the nature of the beast today means that nobody trusts politicians, even the ones they vote for, and 40% of people are so disengaged that they can't be bothered to vote at all. On the other hand 50% of Canadians support the mission in Afghanistan and 50% don't.   Does that mean anything at election time?  What happens if the 40% that don't vote are all part of the 50% opposed to the mission.  The Pro-Mission side then wins 50-10 or about 84% of the vote.  But when the pollsters do their polling the next day they will still hear from the public that 50% of the public is against the mission even though the Government  will be touting the massive support for their policy.

The purpose of this panel is to try and reach out to those people that don't trust politicians of any stripe - so they are representative of a broad range of interests.  It actually is a good thing that the panel includes one or two members that you personally recognize and feel comfortable with.

Cheers.

And PS - I apologize for questioning your motives.  It was unworthy.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (13 Oct 2007)

Wade
I find it interesting that his being a Christian makes you distrustful of Jake Epp. Sounds like you've been watching too many TV Evangelists. Here's the group Jake Epp belongs to:

"The Mennonites are a group of Christian Anabaptist denominations named after Menno Simons (1496-1561), though his teachings were a relatively minor influence on the group. As one of the historic peace churches, Mennonites are committed to nonviolence, nonviolent resistance/reconciliation, and pacifism."
Wikipedia

I can assure you that Mennonites are not "soldiers for Christ" in the way that you described. If anything they are mostly considered as pacifists. Christians are a very diverse lot...there is a very small minority of them who are believers in having a war so Jesus can come back...even though they are a fairly vocal and pushy bunch.
The Christian chaplains you will encounter when you get in the CF are not here to make sure you fight so that Jesus can come back either. We are here to assist everyone.
Drawn from many different faith backgrounds in the community we are here to counsel, advocate and provide support for the troops.

I think that as a group the 5 are probably broadly representative of many different groups within our community. Business, media, Liberal, conservative, female etc. they are all intelligent people who will do their homework I would think.


----------



## GAP (13 Oct 2007)

PM does Dion a favour
By LICIA CORBELLA
Article Link

By striking a Liberal-led, non-partisan panel to explore the future of Canada's military mission in Afghanistan Prime Minister Stephen Harper has provided beleaguered Liberal Leader Stephane Dion with a face-saving option. 

Dion -- who has waffled on his support of Canada's role in Afghanistan -- has repeatedly said he would vote against the Conservative government's Oct. 16 throne speech unless Harper vowed to pull out of the war-torn country when the mission ends in February 2009. 

Of course, Dion made that threat before his party's embarrassing showing in three Quebec byelections, internal party questioning of his leadership and his plunging popularity in the polls. Forcing an election now would almost certainly be political suicide for Dion. 

Parliamentary pundits have been prognosticating that Harper really wants an election even though he says he doesn't. As is often the case, they are wrong. The establishment of this panel proves that Harper wants to remain PM of this minority government as long as possible. 

Withdrawal of the troops is just one of four options open to the panel headed by former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley. 

Other options include shifting the mission to focus on reconstruction in Kandahar rather than security, move the troops to another region of Afghanistan and, to keep training Afghan troops and police to be self-sustaining. 

Besides Manley, the other panel members are: Derek Burney, former ambassador to Washington and one-time chief of staff to Brian Mulroney; Jake Epp, a former Mulroney cabinet minister; Paul Tellier, a former clerk of the privy council and Pamela Wallin, a long-time broadcaster and Liberal-appointed former consul-general in New York. 

Harper says once the panel reports on the best option, he wants a non-partisan, "full, open and informed" debate in Parliament. 

"Whatever future path we choose in Afghanistan, it must respect the sacrifices we have made there" and "the risks of a return to chaos in Afghanistan," said Harper. 

By striking this panel Harper has diminished the chance of a fall election and improved the chance for reasonable debate on this vital issue. 
More on link


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (13 Oct 2007)

I read that article this morning too GAP but I'm not sure I agree that he's doing Dion any favours. If anything he's going to show Dion up as a waffler and he's empowered his natural rival for the leadership, John Manley. Manley would actually be a worthier opponent for Harper. It's all interesting politics but I hope it's good for our mission too, I'd hate to see our fallen dishonoured by petty politicking.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I read that article this morning too GAP but I'm not sure I agree that he's doing Dion any favours. If anything he's going to show Dion up as a waffler and he's empowered his natural rival for the leadership, John Manley. Manley would actually be a worthier opponent for Harper. It's all interesting politics but I hope it's good for our mission too, I'd hate to see our fallen dishonoured by petty politicking.



It's a _favour_ if it allows Dion to do a graceful flip-flop and avoid an election which might be disastrous for the Liberal Party of Canada.

Harper might wish to avoid an election that Canadians (as I read the polls) don't want - where he will be (justly) accused of engineering his own defeat. The Conservative political calculus might point to Canadians' growing _comfort_ with Harper and, if the prognostications about a steady, healthy economy for the next few years are believable, Oct 09 might be the best date.

It (both he Manley appointment and the downstream _flip=flop_, if it occurs) has the added benefit of further diminishing Dion's leadership in the eyes of Canadians.


----------



## GAP (13 Oct 2007)

Whatever the backroom maneuvering are, I keep having this sinking feeling that ALL are going to Screw UP the Afghanistan mission in the name of concensus.....from Harper on down...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Whatever the backroom maneuvering are, I keep having this sinking feeling that ALL are going to Screw UP the Afghanistan mission in the name of concensus.....from Harper on down...



Not if Harper follows Ruxted's advice. That (Ruxted's proposal) is, essentially, one of the four options Harper _recommended_ to Manley's group.


----------



## GAP (13 Oct 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Not if Harper follows Ruxted's advice. That (Ruxted's proposal) is, essentially, one of the four options Harper _recommended_ to Manley's group.



But in listening to all four options, all excluded the combat mission with the exception of security for PRT. They all want to get out of combat, thinking, I guess, the tooth fairies will take over. Did I read it wrong?

edited to add: I have NOT heard anywhere, from anyone, of "Staying the course"


----------



## Flip (13 Oct 2007)

Gap,

I understand your perfectly rational fear.

But it's not Manley's panel - it's the PMs.

Manley probably has more in common with Harper than
he does with Dion. This has done nothing to close the 
chasm between the liberal factions.  It just makes
Dion less relevant. - (Dion Exits stage left)

"Staying the course" would be a bad choice of words for what must be done.
Ruxted's recommendation makes sense. "Finish the job" would be better.

No, I'm  sure this was the right angle for the PM.
The Canadian people need to hear Afghanistan explained
by a group with no appearant political motives.


----------



## GAP (13 Oct 2007)

I guess it'll be wait and see. My bet is Harper will bow to public preception and weaken the mission. Harper has supported the mission when it benefited him, right now it is not, thus is expendable.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Oct 2007)

GAP: My comment on option 1: weasely, tries to downplay the combat side of the mission and implies that role will virtually cease by 2009. It says nothing about a serious military commitment to training or development (PRT) after then, much less combat.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2007)

GAP and Mark - In my opinion - combat is never and end in and of itself.  It is a means to an end.

Canadians have been told by Jack and the Media that the choice is between combat and something else.  The something else is undefined.  

The choice is false.

Combat is engaged in so as to allow the primary mission to continue.

This panel is to define the primary mission.

And then state the prerequisites for success....

Many of us here believe that Military force, judiciously and appropriately applied, will be a prerequisite for success in Afghanistan for a long while to come.

I would not be surprised if the panel came to the same conclusion.

Despite the joint effort with Liberal-hack Eugene Lang, even Janice Stein knows that.  She stated as much on CBC in a One-on-One interview with Peter Mansbridge.

Without soldiers: no girls in school.


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Oct 2007)

Kirkhill: I never consider combat an end in itself, rather in the terms you put it .  A pity the government's options don't really make the same points.  At the very least, the government looks weasely in not mentioning either "combat" or "security" in its first option, and in that the option suggests we'll be getting out fairly fast after Feb. 09 (again with no mention of those two key words).  It seems simply assumed that training the Afghans will be almost competely success with no need for any significant Canadian security/combat role.  Hence "weasely".

Note this excerpt from John Ivison in the _National Post_ today:
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=94a0d3d2-1a95-4f27-8264-02501fcd2342



> Whatever the panel recommends, Canada's policy will remain a hostage to negotiations with our NATO allies. Options one, two and three all require another country or countries to take over Canada's place on the line in Kandahar.
> 
> The most logical candidates are the British, who have just announced they are drawing down their force in Iraq and may withdraw their 5,000 troops completely by the end of next year. At the same time, there are reports of extra troops and equipment being sent to Helmand province in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (13 Oct 2007)

It would seem I am not the only one who sees this play on words in the mandate. While I want to see "security" or "combat" itemized, only a fool thinks the rest happens without either of them. Politically, Harper may not be able to call a marble a marble, but if he never mentions it, he is also not mandated to follow through on it. 

When it all comes down to the crunch, Harper is still first and formost a politician.


----------



## wade.w (13 Oct 2007)

*If we want afghan girls to attend school in Afghanistan*, I think that we are going to have to stay there for at least 60-80 years.  So the youth who grow up with equal rights will have grown to appreciate it and then protect it, without us...  
OR, we have to kill every single anti-womens rights person there.  Which I fear would be the majority of males, aged 13-100... and then make sure that the youth of Afghanistan is OK with girls attending school, learning, etc.   
That's how I see it...   but, what the .... would I know..   :skull:  
We have to KILL the part of their mindset that treats girls horribly.   This takes generations.      
Or am I wrong?


----------



## aesop081 (13 Oct 2007)

wade.w said:
			
		

> *If we want afghan girls to attend school in Afghanistan*, I think that we are going to have to stay there for at least 60-80 years.  So the youth who grow up with equal rights will have grown to appreciate it and then protect it, without us...
> OR, we have to kill every single anti-womens rights person there.  Which I fear would be the majority of males, aged 13-100... and then make sure that the youth of Afghanistan is OK with girls attending school, learning, etc.
> That's how I see it...   but, what the .... would I know..   :skull:
> We have to KILL the part of their mindset that treats girls horribly.   This takes generations.
> Or am I wrong?



You are wrong.........full stop.  Go take a look at the place of women in Afghan society before the Taliban and get back to me.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2007)

It may take *generations* for some of the Afghans to change their mindset. The Afghan National Army will have to 'keep the peace' while that's occurring.

Our job is, _inter alia_, to help the Afghan National Army ready itself for that long, hard task. We should be able to do that in five to 15 years - i.e. three to 12 years from now.


----------



## wade.w (13 Oct 2007)

alright.  I never expected to be right on that...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2007)

You are only right in that it will take generations to change some minds, but CDN Aviator  is more correct: only some Afghans ever thought that way. Many (most?) believed in rough, relative equality for women.

Afghanistan was never a modern, secular, liberal society and it's not our job to make it into one. It's our job to help the Afghans get to the point where they can make their own decisions, in their own way, about their own future, in relative peace and security. When we have helped the ANA accomplish most of that we can, indeed must go home.


----------



## TCBF (13 Oct 2007)

"We’ve been doing just that,and trading in our Pearsonian reputation rather than fulfilling the Pearsonian vision."

- No doubt he realizes Pearson was a very political animal as well.  Pearson - a Liberal - put Nuclear warheads on BOMARC SAMs at North Bay ON and La Macaza QC.  Pearson presided over years of our low-level nuclear strike role in Europe and the 1.5 Kiloton warhead Genie equiped CF-101 Voodoos here in Canada. 

- The election which saw the Liberals under Pearson defeat the Conservatives under "Dief the Chief" was influenced by U.S. political interference.  It worked.  Somehow, people forget that part of the "Pearsonian vision."


----------



## geo (13 Oct 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It may take *generations* for some of the Afghans to change their mindset. The Afghan National Army will have to 'keep the peace' while that's occurring.



If we go to the southern US, there are still some people who, given the chance, would start wearing sheets, burning crosses and doing some sport hunting some BBD (BigB____Dude).  Consider that emancipation happened in the mid 1860s and Martin Luther King happened in say the mid 1970s.

Why would Afghanistan be any different.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (13 Oct 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Manley probably has more in common with Harper than
> he does with Dion. This has done nothing to close the
> chasm between the liberal factions.  It just makes
> Dion less relevant. - (Dion Exits stage left)



Exactly...it's going to make Dion even more irrelevant than he already is.


----------



## observor 69 (13 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> If we go to the southern US, there are still some people who, given the chance, would start wearing sheets, burning crosses and doing some sport hunting some BBD (BigB____Dude).  Consider that emancipation happened in the mid 1860s and Martin Luther King happened in say the mid 1970s.
> 
> Why would Afghanistan be any different.



One of the most overriding lessons I learned in my time in Houston, Texas is that there is still a cultural boundary between the Northern United States and the Southern United States.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (13 Oct 2007)

Isn't it interesting that the CTV label Manley as a Hawk? just because he's pro-mission?

Harper picks Liberal hawk to head Afghan panel




Liberal cabinet minister John Manley speaking in Ottawa on Friday, Oct. 12, 2007.

The Canadian Press 
  
Updated: Sat. Oct. 13 2007 2:35 PM ET 

OTTAWA — Just a few raw weeks after the September 11 attacks, John Manley was already facing questions about what the public might think about Canadian soldiers arriving home in body bags from a new Afghan mission. 

Manley, the foreign affairs minister at the time, was indignant. 

"Canada does not have a history as a pacifist or neutralist country," he fired back. "Canada has soldiers who are buried all over Europe because we fought in defence of liberty, and we're not about to back away from a challenge now because we think somebody might get hurt." 

Manley was often the hawk among the flock of Liberal doves, and Canadian Alliance MPs - who would later convert to Tories - liked to point out the divisions: "We on this side must compliment the Minister of Foreign Affairs for being more in touch with the views of Canadians on the security issues than many of his colleagues appear to be," MP Brian Pallister said during question period. 

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was also undoubtedly cognizant of the sharp differences between Manley and others in the Liberal caucus when he appointed Jean Chretien's deputy prime minister to a panel studying the mission. 

"I'm very confident that we will get a report that the government will be very comfortable with having a public debate on," Harper told reporters Friday. 

If Manley agrees that pulling out of combat in 2009 is premature, his analysis could provoke new divisions within Liberal ranks and hand Harper a valuable weapon should the mission develop into a major election issue. 

It wouldn't be the first time Manley turned up on the wrong side of Liberal Leader Stephane Dion. Earlier this year, they publicly disagreed over allowing certain anti-terror provisions to expire from the lawbooks. 

Manley told reporters Friday that he had not made up his mind on the mission. Still, he's quoted in last month's issue of Policy Options with well formed views on the good that Canadian soldiers, diplomats and aid workers are doing in Afghanistan. Manley recently visited the country again as a director of CARE Canada. 

"Whenever we asked Afghans what they should (the International Security Assistance Force) or Canada should do, they did not hesitate to say we must stay. Without the presence of the international forces, chaos would surely ensue." 

He added, "We often seek to define Canada's role in the world. Well, for whatever reason, we have one in Afghanistan. Let's not abandon it too easily. But let's use our hard-earned influence to make sure the job is done." 

Manley was asked about those statements Friday and insisted he was not prejudging what Canada should do. 

But he made it clear that finding stability for the Afghan people is an issue he's passionate about. In January 2002, he was the first Canadian minister to visit the decaying country in more than 40 years. He arrived just as NATO troops had toppled the Taliban and Hamid Karzai had begun his tenure as president. 

In the Liberal caucus, he and deputy prime minister Anne McLellan became the get-tough-on-terrorism standard bearers employed by former prime minister Jean Chretien to push through legislation and policies demanded by the broader public after the Sept.11 attacks. 

He is often quoted from that period saying Canada couldn't merely sit among G-8 countries, "and then, when the bill comes, go to the washroom." 

"Civilized societies have learned many times before that there is only one way to deal with evil," Manley told the Commons in October 2001, as Canadian soldiers arrived in Afghanistan. "We cannot reason with it, we cannot negotiate with it and we cannot buy time to find a better solution. The only way to deal with evil is to strike at its root, to destroy it and to move on." 

When exactly Canadian combat troops should move on, is the question Manley must now grapple with.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Oct 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> One of the most overriding lessons I learned in my time in Houston, Texas is that there is still a cultural boundary between the Northern United States and the Southern United States.



In Calgary in 1980 I heard a passionate discussion between a Connecticut Yankee name of Burr and a guy from Tennessee whose name escapes me (funny how that works - he was the nicer of the two guys anyway) - the point of the debate was the decline of America resulting from the South's defeat in the War for State's Rights (US Civil War to us).

I know Scots that still drink to the Stewart kings. I know Quebecers that remember 1759. I understand that Kosovars are still passionate about a battlefield covered in crows in the 14th century.  

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Oct 2007)

Kirkhill: It's the (Christian) Serbs, not the (Muslim) Kosovars, who have a passionate attachment to Kosovo Polje  :
http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-322736/Battle-of-Kosovo

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (14 Oct 2007)

Although the panel was given four options to examine, the PM also said they were not limited to these options and were free to explore all other options as well. This way, options like staying the course or even doing a "surge" are potentially in play (however realistic these options might be), without the Prime Minister actually saying them out loud.

The anti war crowd might take a while to realize this, so there is a bit of cover for the PM and the mission.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Oct 2007)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Kirkhill: It's the (Christian) Serbs, not the (Muslim) Kosovars, who have a passionate attachment to Kosovo Polje  :
> http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-322736/Battle-of-Kosovo
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Thanks for the correction Mark.  Memory is a pretty weak reed these days.

By the way, about your response to my comments on the priorities of the panel, I take it that most folks here and that includes you and GAP understand the role combat plays in policy.  My point is that the Public has been brought to believe that the choice is between any of the proposed options and combat.  Most of the proposed options cannot occur in an insecure environment



> I have asked the panel to examine four main options for the future of the Afghanistan mission, although they may consider others.
> 
> Option one is to continue training the Afghan army and police with the goal of creating self-sufficient indigenous security forces in Kandahar province so Canadian troops can start withdrawing in February 2009.
> 
> ...



Option one requires having the Afghans in a position to stand up and take over the security role in Kandahar by 2009.  If they can't do it then the Canadians have to stay.

Or, if the Canadians don't stay then some other country has to take up the slack - and that is option two.

Or, if the other countries don't take up the slack the Taliban leadership wins and with new confidence, new resources and a population with shattered confidence, expands operations .

In which case, if Canada adopts option 3 then the security mission will follow it to another part of Afghanistan because the Taliban will know the Canadians are weak and can be manipulated and will focus their efforts on them.  At the same time the locals will know that the Canadians abandoned the folks in Kandahar, leaving nothing to show for the misery the civilians endured during the fighting and leaving the Taliban in charge to effect reprisals.  The locals in Canada's new sector will not co-operate with the Canadians, will not point out Taliban, will not point out mines, will not permit schools and will allow larger portions of their people to shoot at Canadians.  

As well everybody else supplying security will be having a hotter time because of the emboldened Taliban and will have less forces available to hold/retake Kandahar after Canada leaves.


Option four means that it had better be a VERY small contingent of diplomats and aid workers because the need to supply security for those left will be even greater than it is now.

Of course I suppose we could expect those NGO's that brayed loudly about being confused with the military to step back into military-free Kandahar and start delivering rice with choruses of Koombayah.

I'm hoping that this panel has the sense to come to these conclusions  ;D and the credibility to sell them to the public.


Edit:  Actually given the polling numbers on Harper's personal support, the direction of the country generally and even the Afghan mission in particular,  I don't think that this panel has to work very hard to bolster support on the subject.  I think this is less about trying to convince an unconvinced public (in the sense of majority support) than it is to stop a slow bleed into potentially damaging political territory.  I think Harper, and the opposition, knows that he could actually win an "Afghanistan Election" (and in the resulting up tick most of the rest of the public would likely get in line) with 50% support.   The Liberals have such an election as their greatest fear.  The Bloc figure it is one of the few ways that they might be able to tackle the Tories in Quebec AND carve up the remains of the Liberal Party locally - but even they are vulnerable because not all independently minded Quebecers are socialists. And there's a logical non-sequitur - an independent socialist.  As to the NDP, speaking of socialists, their position is of longstanding and unchanging. The Comintern aka Communist International aka The Third International came into being because The Second International, or the Socialist International couldn't stop World War I by mobilizing the proletariat against their governments. They split along national lines. (The Socialist International subsequently reformed after WW2 and the Comintern was disbanded.   All good Progressive Leaders regularly meet for coffee and doughnuts.  Conservative Leaders aren't informed of the next meeting's time and place  - but I digress).


----------



## GAP (18 Oct 2007)

Manley's per diem up to $1,400
ALAN FREEMAN  Globe and Mail Update October 18, 2007 at 1:07 AM EDT
Article Link

OTTAWA — Nice work if you can get it.

Former deputy prime minister John Manley, who was appointed last week to head a five-member panel of eminent persons investigating the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan, will be paid between $1,200 and $1,400 a day by the federal government for his trouble.

According to orders-in-council published by the Privy Council Office, the four other panel members will be getting a per-diem of $850 to $1,000. 

All five have been appointed to the position of “special advisers to the prime minister” as members of what is known officially as the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan.

The panel is to submit its report and recommendations by Jan. 31 although their terms end on March 31. 

There was no indication of how many days a week the panel is expected to meet but if the schedule calls for 15 days of work a month, that would still result in fees for the regular members of $15,000 per month and more for Mr. Manley.

Mr. Manley has been a lawyer for McCarthy Tetrault since retiring from politics. Former diplomat Derek Burney is currently an adviser to law firm Ogilvy Renault, while former energy minister Jake Epp is chairman of Ontario Power Generation. Onetime broadcaster Pamela Wallin, who also served as Canada's consul-general in New York, is currently chancellor of Guelph University. 

The fifth member is Paul Tellier, former head of Canadian National Railway and onetime clerk of the privy council.
More on link


----------



## Kyu (18 Oct 2007)

Well, they are big shots lawyers that must be their price. Let's say they work 9 to 5, it's ~200$ per hour for Manley. My father had to consult a lawyer for a fence dispute. That lawyer was the cheapest in town (and we later learned, he was also the worst) and he asked for 100$ per hour. So I think it's a fair price for those kind of lawyers.


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2007)

Dude -- per diem - is daily rate for odd and sods - accomodations and rations.
   Its ontop of ones salary.

$1400 a day is offensive

 I'm on $40 a day in Iraq for food -- my accomodations are supplied by the client.

You cannot honestly beleive he is spending that in Afghanistan - unless its on hookers and blow...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Oct 2007)

> Dude -- per diem - is daily rate for odd and sods - accomodations and rations.
> Its ontop of ones salary.
> 
> $1400 a day is offensive
> ...



$1400/day in the sandbox only makes sense if they are hiring their own armoured cars and security team (and paying for this out of pocket).

Of course, there is no indication that this per diem is paid only if they go to Afghanistan, perhaps they feel the need for PSC's when moving about Ottawa as well


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2007)

I would suggest that 18k a day would be a reasonable rate if one was supplying security personnel out of pocket...


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Oct 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Dude -- per diem - is daily rate for odd and sods - accomodations and rations.
> Its ontop of ones salary.



Not necessarily. From dictionary.com
1. by the day; for each day.  
2. a daily allowance, usually for living expenses while traveling in connection with one's work or being employed at a distance from one's home: a per diem for lawmakers while the legislature is in session.  
*3. paid by the day.*

(It's still too much.  )


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (18 Oct 2007)

Agree with PMedMoe. The Latin translates to "per day"


----------



## GAP (18 Oct 2007)

I believe panels, commissions (Royal or otherwise), etc work on a per day basis and are paid according to a flat rate per diem...or day.

Still, nice coin if you can get it.....gee, I could sit there for 5 months, 7 days a week, the odd sod and such, nice dinners and never have to make up my already made up mind....sweet !!


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Oct 2007)

Yep, I think I could do that too.  Besides, that's what they're getting *paid*.  I'm sure they also have an expense account for "working" lunches/dinners and such.  :


----------



## GAP (18 Oct 2007)

But, of course!!


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Yep, I think I could do that too.  Besides, that's what they're getting *paid*.  I'm sure they also have an expense account for "working" lunches/dinners and such.  :



If it is a _normal_ PCO contract then the _per diem_ is almost all inclusive - travel expenses may be extra. _Normally_ 'consultants' are expected to do all the work - up to and including 'publishing' an electronic version of their report - for the agreed _per diem_.

I've been retired for many, many years but, back in the '90s, I often paid $900.00/day for a consultant, $1,400.00 doesn't seem unreasonable 15 year later.


----------



## Spencer100 (18 Oct 2007)

The rate sounds about right for the type of people on the team.  (not saying it is right just the going rate) TO Lawyers can tick off at more than $500.00 per hour in some cases.   I know!  I've paid the bills.


----------



## PMedMoe (18 Oct 2007)

Who says they're all lawyers? 
I don't think Pamela Wallin is, but I'd pay her that kind of money if she promises to never host the Canadian version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" ever again!!  ;D


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2007)

Thanks for the clarification on the payment structure -- I had ASSUMED (my bad) that the per diem was ontop of their salary in this respect.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Oct 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Yep, I think I could do that too.  Besides, that's what they're getting *paid*.  I'm sure they also have an expense account for "working" lunches/dinners and such.  :



To be fair, not always - I've known national scale panel members appointed by GoC who've had to book/pay their own travel.  It can vary....


----------



## Spencer100 (19 Oct 2007)

After I posted that the rate of pay was not too out of line, this post got me thinking (Amazing that).   In WWII we had very important and promient people working on the war effort for a $1 a year.    Maybe we should retool that concept?  People working for the national to be of service and not reward.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2007)

Those _dollar a year men_ (I think they were all men) were still on salary (good salaries) by their civvy employers - a sort of _support the war effort_ gesture by corporations reaping tidy profits from defence contracts.

Mr. Manley is on staff at [http://www.mccarthy.ca/home.aspx]McCarthy Tétrault LLP[/url] - one of those $500/hour type firms. I suspect we (taxpayers) are well served by $1,400/day (all in) rather than $500.00/hour (plus expenses).


----------



## GAP (19 Oct 2007)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> After I posted that the rate of pay was not too out of line, this post got me thinking (Amazing that).   In WWII we had very important and promient people working on the war effort for a $1 a year.    Maybe we should retool that concept?  People working for the national to be of service and not reward.



An example of this is Premier Danny Williams of NFL.....he turns back his salary.


----------



## foresterab (19 Oct 2007)

For perspective from another field...

Oil and gas consultants/landmen usually make between $750-1350/day here in Alberta and may or may not have stock options and benifits associated. 

Not bad for a profession where you don't need any formal training, need to be able to read and write, and generally only take a couple of hours work for each applicaiton.

Is it high wages compared to the per diem paid to the Armed Forces...yes.  But at least the members of the Armed forces aren't forced to walk around with the tag of "Politician" or "consultant" applied to them all the time.


----------



## GAP (20 Oct 2007)

Manley's panel will visit Afghanistan, but plans no public hearings on mission
ALAN FREEMAN October 20, 2007
Article Link

OTTAWA -- The independent panel on the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan will not hold public hearings but does plan to travel to the war-torn country and to consult widely with experts.

The five-member panel, led by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley, has already rented office space in downtown Ottawa and is expected to have its first meeting this weekend, according to a source close to the panel.

The group was appointed last week by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to make recommendations on the future of the contentious military mission, currently due to end in February of 2009.

The panel has been asked to finish its work by Jan. 31, 2008, giving it about three months to research, deliberate and write its report, although the legal mandate extends to March 31. The panel has recruited a half-dozen federal officials who have been seconded from Foreign Affairs, National Defence and the Canadian International Development Agency.

The timing of the visit to Afghanistan is still under wraps for security reasons. The panel is also expected to visit NATO headquarters in Brussels and to get advice from academics and non-governmental organizations active in Afghanistan.

Mr. Manley visited Afghanistan in May in his role as a director of CARE Canada.

As reported earlier in The Globe and Mail, members of the panel are entitled to per diem payments of $1,200 to $1,400 in the case of Mr. Manley and $850 to $1,000 in the case of the other four panelists.

But according to the Privy Council Office, some members of the panel have already indicated that they will serve without pay for personal reasons or because they already receive federal pensions.

In addition, in the case of Mr. Manley and Jake Epp, their remuneration for work on the panel is strictly limited because they receive pensions as former MPs. Similar rules apply to former public servants appointed by Governor in Council, but details of the individual cases were not made public because of privacy laws.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Oct 2007)

In spite of initial reports that the panel wasn't going to have public hearings, now they're setting up to take public submissions via web page - shared with the usual disclaimer...

*Manley Afghanistan panel will open website for public submissions*
John Ward, Canadian Press, 27 Oct 07
Article link - Permalink (.pdf)

John Manley's Afghanistan panel is setting up a website to take written submissions from the public, the head of a Canadian development group said Saturday.

The panel has said it had no plans for public hearings, but Gerry Barr, president of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, said the website will allow for public input.

Barr and representatives of about a dozen other Canadian air groups met Manley and his panel on Saturday. They were told an Internet site will be running soon and will accept comments and recommendations.

"Plainly, if they put their address on the website and ask for submissions, they're going to get them from the general public," Barr said.

Barr said the aid groups had a lively two hours behind closed doors with Manley and his four fellow committee members.

Manley, a former Liberal cabinet minister and one-time leadership contender, was appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper earlier this month to look at the future of Canada's commitment in Afghanistan.

At the time, Harper said he wanted the panel to consider four options:

-Keep training Afghan troops and police to be self-sustaining when Canadian troops withdraw.

-Focus on reconstruction in Kandahar with another NATO country taking over security.

-Shift Canadian security and reconstruction to another region of Afghanistan.

-Withdraw the main body of Canada's troops in February 2009.

Barr said he urged Manley and the panel to look beyond those choices.

"The options . . . that were given to them at the front end all had to do with . . . the Canadian military in Afghanistan," Barr said. "We were there to say to them that you need to put in your option category actively the search for a political consensus in Afghanistan, a national peace process and how Canada could support that kind of process."

Barr also said it's important to break perceived linkages between the military and development, which can become intertwined in people's minds.

"If there is a sort of military signature on aid . . . then the projects themselves can become targets in an insurgency war. As projects become targets, citizens and civilians are targeted themselves . . . and we do the opposite of what we intend with aid.

"We have to stop any confusion between the aid and the military effort."

He agreed, though, that security can't be ignored:

"Plainly, security and development do relate to one another. It's important to have security in order to have development, but that does not mean they are Siamese twins."

Manley and his fellow panel members - former broadcaster Pamela Wallin, Derek Burney, former ambassador to Washington and one-time chief of staff to Brian Mulroney, Paul Tellier, former clerk of the privy council and Jake Epp, a former Mulroney cabinet minister - are expected to report by January.

Harper appointed the panel amid a political debate over what Canada should do when the mandate of its current Afghan commitment runs out in February 2009. The Conservatives are leaning to a continuation, other parties are demanding that the troops come home.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2007)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> "Plainly, security and development do relate to one another. It's important to have security in order to have development, but that does not mean they are Siamese twins."



Plainly Mr. Barr fails to understand that they ARE Siamese twins.  They are the twin functions of Government: Carrot/Patronage/Development vs Stick/Coercion/Security.

In the absence of either capability the Government of Afghanistan must rely on "the kindness of strangers" to provide those capabilities so that it can exercise them.  Whether or not a Government can stay in power depends on how well it can perform that balancing act.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Nov 2007)

And the website is, indeed, up:

http://www.independent-panel-independant.ca/


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Dec 2007)

Just spotted this - appears to have been produced Monday and posted shortly thereafter:

*Recommendations to the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan  * 
Full report (10pg .pdf), December 2007 

"The Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan was asked to investigate different options for Canada’s future policy towards Afghanistan, including the option of troop withdrawal. In this submission, The Senlis Council would like to argue that *withdrawal is not an option. Leaving the country would be a national tragedy for both Afghanistan and Canada. Instead, with its key role on Afghanistan, Canada should take leadership on the international stage. It should exert a leadership role within NATO to increase both military involvement in Afghanistan, and humanitarian aid and development efforts*."

More specifically, in their main recommendations:

"*Recommendation I: Military delivers Aid & Security Action Plan (ASAP) * - Canada should develop an Aid & Security Action Plan (ASAP) for Kandahar, focusing on targeted humanitarian aid and enhanced medical treatment capacity through mobile field hospitals, a rebuilt and re-furbished Mirwais Hospital and medical training programmes. Food aid and medical aid will directly improve the relationships with the Afghan people in Kandahar and will positively affect the security mission in the province. Emergency poverty relief should be a priority for the Canadian mission. Given the dire humanitarian situation and negative security environment in Kandahar, the Canadian Government should immediately empower the Canadian military to secure the delivery of Canada-funded food aid and other supplies to Kandahar’s people. Where there are no local or international aid organisations present, the Canadian soldiers should be involved in the actual delivery of humanitarian aid. 

*Recommendation II: Canada should convene an emergency NATO meeting to discuss the hearts and minds strategy for Afghanistan* - Canada should play a leading role within NATO to create a new balance between military and humanitarian efforts within the stabilisation strategy for Afghanistan. Economic-focused humanitarian interventions should be placed at the core of military planning as a way to pursue an effective hearts and minds strategy. The core challenge is to show the people that the international community is addressing their most basic needs. So far, the failure to do so has given the Taliban a strategic advantage over international troops. A focus on economic humanitarian aid will defuse tensions and create support for the international presence and the central government within rural communities. It will also reduce the growing control that the Taliban exert over those communities, making the troops’ missions safer ....

*Recommendation III: Decrease civilian casualties and introduce emergency treatment of civilians injured in fighting and bombings* - Increased incidents involving civilian casualties, primarily in bombing raids, have predictably proven to be detrimental in winning the support and trust of the Afghan people, and have caused enormous suffering for the people of Kandahar. We must adopt a policy of zero civilian casualties. Air strikes must be limited to those instances where the objective is well defined and civilians will not be victimised. The deployment of highly skilled military paramedics must be implemented immediately in southern Afghanistan. These paramedics would locate, transport, and stabilize casualties of war in liaison with the armed forces and should also be used to train Afghan women and men as future paramedics. 

*Recommendation IV: Achievement of measures of success defines withdrawal date* - Canada should establish clear objectives and corresponding measures of success for its humanitarian, stabilisation and reconstruction work in Afghanistan and should make both its troop commitment and a future end date of its mission dependent on measurable progress in these fields. Key indicators should include health-care, education, and training of ANA/ANP. Canada should stay in Afghanistan until the job is done. To leave before then, can easily be seen as a manifestation of the West’s ‘disposable’ and arrogant attitude toward the people of Afghanistan, a fickle abandonment of our “most significant foreign policy endeavour”, and a sad commentary on the value of the Canadian lives already sacrificed. 

*Recommendation V: Sound counter-narcotics policies* - Canada must take a leadership role in support of President Karzai against chemical spraying of poppy crops. Chemical spraying of poppy growing areas would be disastrous for the Canadian hearts and minds mission. An opinion poll conducted in August 2007 by Ipsos Reid showed that 82 per cent of the Canadian public opposed chemical spraying.1 54 per cent opposed forced crop eradication altogether. Canada should support the implementation of a scientific Poppy for Medicine pilot project in Kandahar province to investigate the positive benefits of local morphine production on farming communities´ security and development. The Ipsos Reid opinion poll further showed that 79 per cent of Canadians support a Poppy for Medicine pilot projects and 70 per cent thinks Prime Minister Harper should support this short-term economic development tool. At the same time Canada should invest further in alternative livelihoods and diversification of the rural economy ....

*Recommendation VI: The Canadian Government should empower Canadian citizens to help Afghans through exchange and development programmes* - The Canadian Government should do more to empower Canadian citizens to help Afghanistan. For this purpose, it should build on its “Canada Corps” initiative and broaden this approach with a proper infrastructure that allows Canadian individuals and aid organisations to maximise their role and impact in the Afghan reconstruction and development process. Stimulating help programmes and professional exchanges between Canadians and Afghans will not only increase mutual understanding, but will also empower more Canadians to directly provide support to communities in Kandahar, creating stronger popular support for a difficult but necessary mission. The Canadian Government should also investigate ways to encourage private investment by Canadian entities, for example through a system of tax credits. "


----------



## Donut (5 Dec 2007)

This jumped out at me:



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Just spotted this - appears to have been produced Monday and posted shortly thereafter:
> 
> *Recommendations to the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan  *
> Full report (10pg .pdf), December 2007
> ...



Last time I checked, the Senlis Country Director for Afghanistan was Ed McCormick, a BC Ambulance Service Paramedic.

He's also the one who wrote a very scathing piece on CF Medical Service's neglect of Mir Wais, while we staffed the Role 3 "just down the road", and recommended that the CF place some of our staff there to support and mentor the Afghan health care professionals.

Not surprising that he's focussed on the health care situation, and he may have a point that health care to underserved populations may be a great means to dislocate the insurgents from the local populace.  He's clearly unaware of how stretched the CFHS is just to staff the necessary KAF and Role 1 positions, and the fact that we already provide care and transport for anyone we injure, even at the expense of reserve capabilities in Kandahar and other NATO medical treatment facilities

PMT

Edit to correct Mr. McCormick's job title and confirm spelling


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Dec 2007)

I was wondering why so much detail in the underlying recommendations focusing on medical facilities.

Also, this was posted after I posted the original material - we'll see how much MSM picks up this headline:

"De Facto Taliban Al Qaeda State forming on Pakistan/Afghanistan Border
Manley Panel urged to recommend Canada call for Emergency NATO meeting
*Withdrawal of NATO troops from Southern Afghanistan could lead to abandonment of Afghan people - a repeat of Rwanda, Srebrenica"* - link to news release


----------



## DualCore (5 Dec 2007)

I don't think we need to worry that the Senlis Council will be ignored by the Canadian MSM.  With thousands of Canadians in Afghanistan, the only news we get is ramp-ceremonies and Senlis Council, so I think reprinting an Senlis editorial statement written like an news article is cheap and easy compared with actually reporting about the war.

On the substance, I'm sure an UN administered narco-state on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border could generate significant revenues for the infamous Oil-for-Food-Bureaucrats and Kyoto-Bureaucrats, but wouldn't it be simpler if we just granted them monopoly-authority over the Internet, or cell phone frequencies?


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Dec 2007)

DualCore said:
			
		

> On the substance, I'm sure an UN administered narco-state on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border could generate significant revenues for the infamous Oil-for-Food-Bureaucrats and Kyoto-Bureaucrats, but wouldn't it be simpler if we just granted them monopoly-authority over the Internet, or cell phone frequencies?



Hi, always nice to see a new face on the boards - not much profile filled, I see...

Happy to see a range of input, but do you have any, oh, I don't know, links to back this up with?

I sense you're not, shall we say, entirely on board re:  helping Afghans towards a life outside the rule of people who would execute them for having American money in their pockets?  Or am I misreading?


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Dec 2007)

DualCore said:
			
		

> On the substance, I'm sure an UN administered narco-state on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border could generate significant revenues for the infamous Oil-for-Food-Bureaucrats and Kyoto-Bureaucrats, but wouldn't it be simpler if we just granted them monopoly-authority over the Internet, or cell phone frequencies?



Ever consider a career in politics??

A paragraph full of words meaning nothing. You'd do well. I did not make any sense of that whatsoever.

Wes


----------



## DualCore (6 Dec 2007)

re: Or am I misreading?

Yes, you are misreading.

I am entirely in favour of Canada bringing security, peace, prosperity, and civilization to Afghanistan, and the border regions of Pakistan that may need it even more than Kabul, Kandahar, and Helmand.

And I'd like it done with double the manpower and triple the budget.

What I oppose is that the people of Canada drop to their knees, renounce their political system, and surrender the control of our military to a handful of oddballs financed by gods-knows-who who want Canadian soldiers to be their enforcers and drug-mules.  

Although I realize that Canadian politicians and journalists have important work to do today with the Mulroney/Schreiber fiasco and the James-Moore/Old-Hag/Scantily-clad-women fiasco. 

As I write this, the CBC (Canadian State Media) is interviewing a former beauty-queen about the situation in Iran.   I'm all for Canada having an opinion about Iran, and yesterday our Ambassador was expelled so it is certainly topical, but instead we have an idiot from MuchMusic flirting with a hot young women of Iranian origin, rather than any serious journalism on the subject.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Dec 2007)

My spider-sense detects a touch of conspiracy theory nutjob......

Or maybe i'm just hungry. I'm not sure yet


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Dec 2007)

Uh..... yeah.....


----------



## 1feral1 (6 Dec 2007)

DualCore said:
			
		

> What I oppose is that the people of Canada drop to their knees, renounce their political system, and surrender the control of our military to a handful of oddballs financed by gods-knows-who who want Canadian soldiers to be their enforcers and drug-mules.
> 
> Although I realize that Canadian politicians and journalists have important work to do today with the Mulroney/Schreiber fiasco and the James-Moore/Old-Hag/Scantily-clad-women fiasco.



Holy shyte, over!

What's he on?

Wes


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Jan 2008)

Manley report won't call for Canada to leave Afghanistan

Mike Blanchfield, Canwest News Service 
Published: Friday, January 18, 2008



OTTAWA -- There will be no dramatic reduction of Canadian troops from volatile southern Afghanistan called for by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley in his eagerly awaited report on the country's military future there.

After touring NATO headquarters, Afghanistan and receiving hundreds of submissions, the independent commission created by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to advise his government on the way forward is not expected to recommend any significant scaling back of Canada's commitment of 2,500 soldiers in the Kandahar region, or any profound change in their current marching orders.

While it is expected Mr. Manley will emphasize the need for Canada to continue contributing to the training of Afghan national army and police personnel, the panel's findings, to be released as early as Tuesday, will not recommend a significant shift in the mission that Canada is currently conducting there with its 25 NATO allies and 11 other partner countries.

A published report earlier this week suggested that the Manley commission would recommend a phased reduction of Canadian personnel in Afghanistan to as low as 1,500.

A source familiar with the content of the final report told Canwest News that it would not contain any specific calls for troop reductions.

Many people who have contributed submissions to the panel say they came away with the impression that Mr. Manley and his fellow members are essentially in favour of staying the course in Afghanistan. That is, continuing combat operations while simultaneously training Afghan security forces towards the mutually agreed NATO endgame of withdrawal at a later, undetermined date.

"I basically said we should stay and continue our role," said Canadian military historian and author Jack Granatstein, summarizing his submission to the panel last month.

"Their questions seemed to be of a kind that when people ask you questions you get a sense of what way they're leaning," he added. "I had the sense listening to them and watching their body language they agreed with what I was saying."

Granatstein's impression indicates that the commission is likely to reject three of the four possible options in its terms of reference: an end to Canada's current combat role, and a shift towards development and diplomatic efforts; large-scale withdrawals of Canadian troops starting in February 2009; or a shift to a less volatile part of the country.

That leaves one option on the table: continue the current mission until western troops can begin a "phased withdrawal" starting no earlier than February 2009 and "consistent with progress" in training Afghan forces.

Mr. Harper wants the panel to advise him on a course of action after Canada's current commitment to NATO expires in February 2009, but he has repeatedly said that Canada will not pull out of Afghanistan until it is secure.

The Conservatives would like to extend the military commitment to 2011, but the three federal opposition parties, who hold the majority of seats in the House of Commons, are opposed.

Mr. Harper has pledged to bring the matter to a vote in the Commons, but has said he doesn't want the issue to be decided by partisan politics.

"If they put it to a vote in the House, I don't see how it can pass unless there's a sudden outbreak of influenza on the opposition benches," said Mr. Granatstein.

Mr. Granatstein said it would be "calamitous" if the Commons rejected continuing Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan because it would negatively ripple throughout NATO, which is still short of troops and military hardware.

"It will knock our reputation, which was wobbly under the Grits, back to what it was. We will be, once again, unreliable Canada."

When Mr. Manley was foreign minister in the former Liberal government, he was openly critical of Canada for not pulling its weight on the international stage.

Afghanistan Ambassador Omar Samad said his country will respect whatever decision the government makes, but he noted that it would have international ramifications far beyond Canadian domestic politics.

"This is not purely a bilateral issue between Canada and Afghanistan. This is an issue between a recipient country such as Afghanistan and the international community at different levels. On the security side, you have NATO as a body, which derives its legitimate actions from a UN-mandated mission," Mr. Samad said.

"It's going to be important to take decisions, taking into the account the NATO and UN mandates and to do so in a coherent and coordinated fashion."

In their submission to Mr. Manley, the Liberals stressed the need for Canada to notify NATO of its intent to pull out of Afghanistan on schedule so replacement troops could be found in another country.

But any reduction in Canada's commitment would appear to cut directly against the current tide of international momentum that is building towards April's NATO summit in Romania, which will also host UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

NATO officials have said both publicly and privately -- including on a below-the-radar visit to Ottawa this past week -- that Canada's contribution to the south is as necessary now as it ever was. No one, quite simply, is waiting in the wings to replace Canada in Kandahar.

U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said this week that other NATO countries had better start looking for a replacement for the 3,200 extra marines already headed to the Kandahar region in April because they aren't staying there longer than seven months.

The parliament of the Netherlands, one of Canada's key allies in the south, has granted an extension to 2010. 

Mr. Granatstein said Mr. Harper could chose to delay the vote in Canada's parliament until after the NATO summit. 

Defence Minister Peter MacKay suggested earlier this week that there isn't another country waiting to replace Canada, and that it has no intention of leaving its allies in a lurch. 

"I have concerns about other NATO countries and their capacity and willingness to do more," Mr. MacKay said. 

"What we're trying to do is see that this mission succeeds, first and foremost. That means NATO, all for one and one for all ... and a big, big part of it is the training element."

Ottawa Citizen


----------



## Gunner98 (20 Jan 2008)

"A source familiar with the content of the final report told Canwest News that it would not contain any specific calls for troop reductions."

Mike does like that flowery language to support his hunches while not committing to a 'specific statement".  It is easy to guess what it won't say but why doesn't he say what it will contain.


----------

