# John Manley's Report On Afganistan-Due Jan 22/ 2008



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Jan 2008)

Manley to recommend Canada stay on in Afghanistan
Last Updated: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 | 7:28 AM ET 

John Manley is set to release his highly anticipated report Tuesday morning on Canada's mission in Afghanistan, in which he is expected to recommend Canada continue its presence in the country beyond the current deadline of February 2009.

The blue-ribbon panel led by the former Liberal cabinet minister is also expected to urge NATO to send more troops and helicopters to Kandahar and put more emphasis on training the Afghan army and police.
It has been widely reported that Manley and the advisory group will not give a specific timeline of how long Canada's mission in the embattled country should last.

The findings won't be binding, but will carry weight in the discussions about Canada's future role in Afghanistan given that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also promised to allow MPs to vote on the issue in Parliament.
The panel has received more than 200 submissions from interested people and organizations, including those from the Liberal party and the Green party, the CBC's Rosemary Barton reported. The NDP and the Bloc Québécois, which have been critical of the panel, didn't submit suggestions, she said.

Speaking in Halifax Monday, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said he expects a "very informed and informative report — one which will be very beneficial to not just the government, but to Parliament and to all Canadians in framing the debate as to how we go forward in Afghanistan."
The Liberals have indicated they would like to see Canada's combat role in the south wind down by the 2009 deadline, with more emphasis placed on the development element of the mission.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said Monday he isn't against the idea of Canadian soldiers training the Afghan army or helping with development projects. But he said he wants Canada off the front lines where its soldiers have been fighting and dying.

"What we want, it's a mission to help Afghanis to build their country, a mission in the tradition of Canada," Dion said. "The combat mission must end in February 2009, and after that we'll help Afghanistan by other ways."
NDP Leader Jack Layton reiterated his party's call on Monday for a complete Canadian withdrawal.

"I think that it's well known by Canadians that we feel this is the wrong mission, the wrong mission for Canada, that NATO's approach is failing," Layton said. "More and more Canadians have come around to our view.
The advisory panel and Manley, a one-time federal Liberal leadership contender, were appointed by the prime minister last October 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. 
The group — which includes former broadcaster Pamela Wallin, Derek Burney, former ambassador to Washington and one-time chief of staff to former prime minister Brian Mulroney, Paul Tellier, former clerk of the privy council and Jake Epp, a former Mulroney cabinet minister — also spent 10 days touring Afghanistan in November.

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 toward a continuation of Canadian troops working in the region, while other parties are demanding that the troops come home.

Seventy-seven Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed since the beginning of Canada's mission in Afghanistan in 2002.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/01/22/afghan-manley.html


----------



## CdnArtyWife (22 Jan 2008)

The final report (all 94 pages) can be viewed/downloaded as a pdf at: http://www.independent-panel-independant.ca/pdf/Afghan_Report_web_e.pdf

Happy reading...

CAW


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jan 2008)

And here's the news release on the Panel web page....

*Canada urged to shift focus of its Afghanistan missionIndependent Panel sets out conditions for extending military commitment  * 
News release link - en francais

Jan. 22, 2008, OTTAWA – Canada’s future role in Afghanistan must place greater emphasis on diplomacy and reconstruction and the Canadian military focus must shift gradually from combat to training Afghan national security forces, an expert panel report today recommended to the federal government.

“We are recommending a Canadian commitment to Afghanistan that is neither open-ended nor faint-hearted,” says the report by the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan.

“We owe it to the Afghans, to our allies and to our own future security needs to give this mission every possible chance to succeed,” says John Manley, Chair of the Panel. “What is evident is that the commitment to Afghanistan made by successive Canadian governments has not yet been completed. The ultimate objective is to enable the Afghans to manage their own security.”

The Independent Panel says Canada’s military mission in southern Afghanistan should be extended beyond February 2009, provided two key conditions are met:

That a new battle group is deployed by International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) partners to Kandahar province, enabling Canadian forces to accelerate training of the Afghan National Army; and 
That the Government secure by February 2009 at the latest new, medium-lift helicopters and high-performance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).     
If these conditions are not met, the Independent Panel urges the government to notify Afghan and allied governments that Canada intends to transfer responsibility for security in Kandahar. 

The Panel also recommends a new diplomatic push by Canada to ensure that the international effort to help Afghans rebuild their country and reconcile their differences is better coordinated and produces measurable results. The report calls on the Prime Minister to personally take charge of this diplomatic effort.  

“The Prime Minister has substantial influence and we urge him to use it, commensurate with Canada’s contributions,” adds Manley. “Specifically, we urge efforts to make the international, civilian and military effort more coherent and more effective. Equally, there is an urgent need to reduce regional tensions and to press for stronger action by the Afghan Government to tackle corruption and deliver basic services to the Afghan people. Canada’s development assistance should be revamped to bolster that objective.”

The Independent Panel also says the government must do a better job of informing Canadians on why Canada is involved in Afghanistan, what are the risks and challenges of being there, and what outcomes can realistically be achieved.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper established the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan in October 2007. It was given the task of advising Parliament on options for the Canadian mission in Afghanistan once its mandate ends in February 2009.

In addition to John 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.


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Jan 2008)

Ah yes, substitute an allied BG so the Canadian BG can train the ANA.Maybe I read it wrong ?


----------



## technofixit (22 Jan 2008)

If these conditions are not met, the Independent Panel urges the government to notify Afghan and allied governments that Canada intends to *transfer* responsibility for security in Kandahar. 

Transfer responsibilty to whom?  I don't see any other NATO countries chomping at the bit to take over security in Kandahar.  If we cease combat operations in the Kandahar area, and stick to providing very limited local security, than I think the Taliban are going to have a field day.


----------



## CdnArtyWife (22 Jan 2008)

Manley is speaking about the report on CBCnewsworld now.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Jan 2008)

"The Afghan mission is a noble one".

Here's my selection of major points made (by John Manley unless otherwise noted), with a bit of comment, at the press conference on the Afghanistan panel's report. Mr Manley and the whole panel were clearly passionate about the importance of our mission; they gave a very convincing presentation of their case. What a pity that Mr Manley is not the Liberal leader. The title of this comment is my summary of the panel's message.

*NATO must provide a 1,000-strong battle group to help us at Kandahar (comment: our actual combat forces there are about that number). We need a fighting partner, like the Danes with the Brits and the Aussies with the Dutch. If NATO does not come through by February 2009 the some 2,000 Canadian troops in Afghanistan should be withdrawn. If we withdraw, and NATO does not replace us, the whole international Afghan mission faces failure.

Comment: A strong piece of diplomatic blackmail. Not exactly honourable to my mind, given the stress on the importance of our mission--but perhaps effective negotiating hardball.

*The new US troop commitment, if not temporary as now, could satisfy our requirement

*Prime Minister Harper must take charge of the issue domestically, and take a forceful personal lead with the allies; no Parliamentary vote on the future of the mission should be held until after NATO's early April summit meeting in Bucharest.

The government must do a much better and franker job of explaining the mission and the situation in Afghanistan to the public.

*The security situation in the south is not improving; the government needs to admit this.

*The training of the Afghan National Army is a "great success". The exit strategy is gradually to shift the combat load to them with our troops as backup. But that backup role still involves some combat. So does training since trainers need to go into the field with their ANA units and fight alongside them.

*Derek Burney: It's not only NATO that needs to get its act together but also those doing civilian work. A powerful UN coordinator is required for international aid, reconstruction, governance etc. efforts.

*When Mr Manley became foreign minister "Not a lot of people listened when Canada talked." Now, because of what we have done, they listen to us about Afghanistan.

*Canada can't just retreat from international engagement to North America, under the umbrella of US protection.

*The mission is authorized by the UN and firmly in the tradition of Lester Pearson. It would be nice to have a peacekeeping mission at Kandahar--but "there is no peace to keep."

*As for Darfur: the Sudanese government doesn't want us and such a mission would be a combat one anyway.

Liberal leader Stéphane Dion anwered a few press questions, by chance right after the Manley press conference. He said he wouldn't comment on the report until after he'd read it--and then seemed to say the Liberal position on ending our combat role in 2009 was firm. So why bother reading the report? I'm going to read the whole darned 94-page thing.  

"Rambo Dion"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/marching-as-to-war.html

Here's the CTV story, with video of the press conference:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080121/manley_panel_080122/20080122?hub=TopStories

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jan 2008)

And what happens next?

*Statement by the PM Upon the Release of the Report 
by the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan*
Statement link - francais, 22 Jan 08

Ottawa, Ontario - "On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to thank John Manley, Derek Burney, Pamela Wallin, Paul Tellier and Jake Epp for their hard work in producing this substantive and thoughtful report that contains recommendations regarding Canada's future role in Afghanistan. This report will help inform broader public debate about the future of Canada's role in Afghanistan as Parliamentarians prepare to make this important decision.

"I also want to thank the more than 300 individuals from the development, diplomatic, political, and security sectors, who met with the panel members and shared their knowledge and experience. 

*"Over the coming days, our government will thoroughly review the recommendations with Cabinet and our Caucus before coming forward with our response." * 

The Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan was created by the Prime Minister on October 12, 2007. It was asked to advise Canadians and Parliament on options for the mission after the current mandate ends in February, 2009.

The report of the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan can be found on the Panel's website: www.independent-panel-independant.ca or on the Library and Archives Canada website at www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/afghanistan.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Jan 2008)

Reaction by the Conference of Defence Associations (from an e-mail):



> The Conference of Defence Associations (CDA)
> http://www.cda-cdai.ca/english-frame.htm
> welcomes this very important document. After reviewing the report, the CDA has concluded that it is a sober and even-handed assessment of Canada's role thus far in the Afghan mission, and provides a compelling vision for the future. It presents a set of important recommendations, many in line with the CDA's own proposals made in the past and in its own submission to the panel, that build upon the goodwork already accomplished in Afghanistan...
> 
> ...



Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jan 2008)

Some good, some bad and some WTF.

The good is telling it like it is. We are facing a very hard job and our friends and allies really do need to step up, not just for us and the Afghan people but to demonstrate that NATO is still a viable organization. We have nothing to do with opium eradication, aid delivery by CDIA or the role of the PMO in communicating the mission (although we have all ended up doing some parts of these jobs more or less on our own).

What I found bad about the report is the suggestion we change our emphasis to training the ANSF (Afghan National Security Forces; the ANA and ANP); what do they think we are doing out there? At least they are realistic that the Role of the OMLT or whatever the successor organization is called will still involve combat operations.

The WTF is the suggestion we get 1000 new NATO troops to Kandahar post haste to support us, and we get medium lift helicopters and high performance UAV's within the next year. Based on NATO's response to previous requests for troops, it would be much more probable that we increase the size of the next two or three ROTOs by 1000 Canadian soldiers for a "surge". As for getting helicopters, we have seen that even with single source contracts it takes something like two or more years to get new aircraft. UAV's might be on the edge of possibility, but who will man the UAV flights or batteries or whatever?

Overall, lots of meat to chew on, and I will also be spending time reading the document.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (22 Jan 2008)

Excellent report. It's very depressing to read the comments on the CTV website though and I should know better by now than to read them. I agree with the "idea" of a Canadian surge but where the heck would we get the troops??  ???


----------



## sgf (22 Jan 2008)

what happens to this report if the following conditions are not met

_Therefore, Canada’s military mission in Kandahar should be conditionally
extended beyond February 2009—the extension to be expressly contingent on the
deployment of additional troops by one or more ISAF countries to Kandahar
province. This added deployment should consist of a battle group (about 1,000
soldiers) to reinforce ISAF’s “clear, hold and develop” strategy in Kandahar and to
accelerate training of Afghan army and police units_


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Jan 2008)

The not unexpected response from the Loyal Opposition:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080122/panel_opposition_080122/20080122?hub=TopStories

And from the other two parties: (taken from: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/01/22/afghan-manley.html )

NDP Leader Jack Layton, who has called for a complete and immediate Canadian withdrawal, reacted negatively to the recommendations.

"This report is clearly out of touch with the feelings of a great many Canadians and a careful reading of the report shows that this mission is failing on many, many fronts," Layton told reporters following a meeting with caucus members in Montebello, Que.   

"The NDP continues to believe that a complete change of direction is essential in Afghanistan."

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe also disagreed with extending the mission.

"Canadian and Quebec military have done more than their share. Other countries now must step in and take up the challenge," Duceppe said.


----------



## QV (22 Jan 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe also disagreed with extending the mission.
> 
> "*Canadian and Quebec military * have done more than their share. Other countries now must step in and take up the challenge," Duceppe said.



I wonder what that is supposed to mean?


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Jan 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The not unexpected response from the Loyal Opposition:
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080122/panel_opposition_080122/20080122?hub=TopStories
> 
> ...


Hey, Duceppe, you may have been a communist at one point, but provinces don't have militaries, in fact, they are prohibited from raising militaries BY THE CONSTITUTION!
As for Mr. "The Sky is Falling" Layton, I say SHAME!  By what measure is the mission failing?  By what measure is this a combat-centric mission?  I mean, after MEDUSA, there have been combat operations, firefights and the like, but nothing on the scale of the summer of 2006!  I think that the NDP is focussed in the past.  I haven't a clue what the Liberals are talking about, but I just can't let it slide that Mr Duceppe had the outright NERVE to call those proud members of the CANADIAN Armed Forces, who are stationed in Quebec, as members of the QUEBEC military!!!!!


 :rage:


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Jan 2008)

I guess he means that Canada and French Canadians have done their share and can go home. 
No question that the CF has been punching above their weight for sometime now. Despite DoD's comments to the contrary I wouldnt be surprised to see either a Marine MEU or Army brigade in Kandahar province after the 24th MEU completes its 7 month tour. With Kandahar being the second most active province its only natural it seems to me that the NATO forces in that province be reinforced.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Jan 2008)

A post at _The Torch_ (beyond my comment above):
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/70016/post-664529.html#msg664529

The guts of the Manley panel report
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/guts-of-manley-panel-report.html



> ...below are some excerpts that strike me as fundamental to the panel's message (the substantive part of the report is just thirty-two pages). The best possible result, for the internal politics of both Canada and NATO, would be if France provided the 1,000 strong battle group to partner with us at Kandahar. With M. Sarkozy as Président de la République...
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-wonder-what-m-dion-thinks.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FascistLibertarian (22 Jan 2008)

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=256093



> John Manley was asked Tuesday if his panel's report on Canada's future in Afghanistan was consistent with Liberal tradition.
> 
> "Absolutely this is in the Liberal tradition. I think that countries like Canada have an important, meaningful role to play in protecting our values, standing up for the rights of individuals [and for] the human security of people whose government can't protect them -- that's something we as Canadians have talked a lot about.
> 
> We're a rich country, we've got to do some of this stuff ... The world isn't a pretty place but I happen to believe that the people who came before me in the Liberal party believed in a strong role for Canada on the international stage and would say there are times when we have to be counted, times when it matters. that's what I think."



+1 John Manley


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jan 2008)

Gotta love the "two fer" news release from the Tories, dinging BOTH theLiberals and the Green Party!

*CONSERVATIVES CALL ON MAY TO RETRACT EXTREMIST REMARKS*
It’s also time for Stéphane Dion to terminate the Liberal/Green Party Coalition 
News release link - francais

January 22, 2008 - Today, Conservative Member of Parliament, Pierre Poilievre demanded that Stéphane Dion’s candidate in Central Nova, Elizabeth May to apologize for characterizing NATO and Canadian forces as “Christian Crusaders” (Green Party, Press Release, January 22, 2008) and called on Stéphane Dion to terminate his electoral cooperation agreement with a leader so out of the mainstream to smear the reputation of our soldiers, diplomats and aid workers.

“These comments by Stéphane Dion’s candidate in Central Nova not only demonstrate a lack of knowledge about foreign affairs but are grossly insulting to Canadian forces,” said Poilievre.  “Our Canadian forces along with our NATO allies are working together with the support of the democratically elected Afghan government to bring peace and human rights to the people of Afghanistan and these comments continue to demonstrate that Liberal/Green collation is not worth the risk.”

“Ms. May is trying to imply that our troops, diplomats and aid workers are forcibly occupying Afghanistan when in fact they are there at the invitation of the Afghan Government,” said Poilievre.

This is not the first time that Stéphane Dion’s candidate has made radical remarks. The London Free Press reported that Green Party Leader Elizabeth May returned to London to preach her views on climate change where she accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of taking a stance that "represents a grievance worse than Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of the Nazis." (London Free Press, April 30, 2007) 

“It is time for Stéphane Dion to make a decision, will he continue to have Ms. May and her radical views as his candidate in riding of Central Nova,” said Poilievre.  “This is just evidence of the extremism that exists within the Liberal – Green Party coalition between Stéphane Dion and Elizabeth May.”



For the record, here's the whole sentence in context from the Greens:


> “The Manley Report fails to consider that the recommendation of more ISAF forces from a Christian/Crusader heritage will continue to fuel an insurgency that has been framed as a ‘Jihad’. This, in turn, may feed the recruitment of suicide bombers and other insurgents...”


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Jan 2008)

I'm particularly taken with this passage:

...the Canadian aid program in Afghanistan has been impeded not only by the dangerous security environment in Kandahar but by CIDA’s own administrative constraints. More than half of CIDA funding in Afghanistan flows through multilateral agencies, and another 35 per cent is channelled through national programs administered by the central government in Kabul. This leaves little for locally managed quick-action projects that bring immediate improvements to everyday life for Afghans, or for “signature” projects readily identifiable as supported by Canada. Funding allocations aside, CIDA staffers in Kandahar do not often venture beyond their base, in part, we were told, because of restrictive security regulations maintained by CIDA’s headquarters in Canada. While it is undeniably difficult to place civilians in a conflict zone, CIDA should delegate decisions about security of movement to civilian and military officials on the ground who are best placed to make such assessments. It makes little sense to post brave and talented professional staff to Kandahar only to restrict them from making regular contact with the people they are expected to help...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/guts-of-manley-panel-report.html

My own experience last tour does not contradict this. The military was significantly more efficient at delivering reconstruction dollars directly to the Afghans. CIDA needs to streamline the way in which money flows from Ottawa to the population being helped. Instead of having money siphoned off at various levels, the on the ground official should have much wider powers to disburse the funds as needed. Not only would this reduce the chance or the appearance of corruption within the various levels of government, it would provide a more meaningful approach to reconstruction and development.

_Edit for spelling._


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Jan 2008)

> ACCT, AfDB, APEC, Arctic Council, ARF, AsDB, ASEAN (dialogue partner), Australia Group, BIS, C, CDB, CE (observer), EAPC, EBRD, ESA (cooperating state), FAO, G-7, G-8, G-10, IADB, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICCt, ICRM, IDA, IEA, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, IMSO, Interpol, IOC, IOM, IPU, ISO, ITSO, ITU, ITUC, MIGA, MINUSTAH, MONUC, NAFTA, NAM (guest), NATO, NEA, NSG, OAS, OECD, OIF, OPCW, OSCE, Paris Club, PCA, PIF (partner), SECI (observer), UN, UNAMSIL, UNCTAD, UNDOF, UNESCO, UNHCR, UNMOVIC, UNRWA, UNTSO, UNWTO, UPU, WCL, WCO, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WTO, ZC


  From the CIA World Factbook, a list of the Groups in which Canada holds membership.

Would it be safe to suggest that CIDA's true function is to manage the membership fees to all these clubs?  If it is possible to join two clubs for one fee then someone gets promoted.  What the funds are actually used for may be secondary to the need to belong to these clubs.  That is what disbursement through multilateral agencies suggests to me. 

It also suggests why no government is looking at increasing the development budget to Pearson's 0.7%.  There seems to be no accountable mechanism in place for delivering targeted aid.  I think someone is going to have to invent it.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jan 2008)

<sarcasm>If Quebec has it's own military, then maybe they can provide the extra 1000 man battlegroup </sarcasm>

Kirkhill brings up a good point as always. We belong to a lot of clubs, but what benefit do we derive from belonging and what do these "clubs" actually do? Based on observation, perhaps we should do a "Surge" but increase the size of the PRT with the extra troops and seize the CDIA funds that are sitting idle to pay for the enlarged PRT to go out and do the basic development work that is needed. 

How many CDIA rocket scientists do you need to train and hire locals to clear fields and repair irrigation ditches for agriculture, build or repair two lane roads to allow commerce to develop between villages and regions, plant trees, start micro-credit unions or establish local radio stations that give farmers weather reports and market news? (Just off the top of my head ideas). Since the PRT already does things like that on a small scale, giving them more resources to keep on doing these things, leaving the Battlegroup in place to protect these projects and gradually moving ANA and ANP to hold the areas we have cleared and developed is doable (we already know how to do this), proven effective and meets our long term goals.

While in the perfect world, civilian development agencies of CDIA would be out there doing the development work, so far they have shown about as much inclination to move out into Kandahar province as some of our NATO allies. 

We might be able to Surge with a clear goal in mind and a clear understanding of what will happen at home while this goes on. Plan "B" might be to stop beating our heads against the wall in Old Europe and see if our new friends in the Partnership for Peace nations might step up instead. There is no reason to suppose the Poles, Romanians or Czechs (among others) are not equally brave and capable and we could sweeten the deal by offering multi lateral training in Wainwright or other suitable places (their Air Force might like flying in the wide open skies of Alberta or Labrador, for example), or perhaps other economic or diplomatic considerations might be on the table in return for their help.

I would suggest the weak point in the Manley commission's report is the unrealistic expectations of our allies and procurement system, and the Government should consider how to implement those things that are possible out of our own resources.


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Jan 2008)

While the Turks are unlikely to show up at Kandahar, I wonder what Ms May has to say about the 1,200 Turkish Muslim Crusaders in Afstan:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/20080116_More_troops_to_Afghanistan.html



> Turkey has NATO's second-largest military but keeps just 1,200 soldiers in Afghanistan, based around Kabul. The Turks argue they are under no obligation to do more, since they get no international support for their war against Kurdish insurgents.
> 
> Some allies actually make a bigger proportional contribution than the United States. It has 1.1 percent of its troops serving with NATO in Afghanistan, while Britain has 4 percent, Denmark 3.5 percent, the Netherlands 2.9 percent, and Canada 2.6 percent. All of those are active in the south.



Note that final percent. And note the Danes:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/dane-commands-brits-in-major-helmand.html

Do you think one Canadian in a thousand (or one Canadian journalist in a hundred) realizes that Denmark is contributing more combat troops in Afstan per capita than Canada? And that those dreaded (they were over a thousand years ago) Danes are actually using highly controversial--at least in Canada--tanks?

Do our active politicians know any facts, or are they just all attitude? Asked, and I think implicitly answered.

What a small and ignorant mental world most Canadians inhabit. 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## gillbates (23 Jan 2008)

looks like the report has sparked some enlightened discussion on ctv.ca

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080122/panel_opposition_080122/20080122?hub=TopStories



> Glenn in Vernon
> I congratulate Mr. Manley on doing a thorough review of this mission and coming up with a sensible set of recommendations. It is no secret that we need more help from other NATO countries in trying to contain the Taliban. I particualry wonder: where is France? Canada came to their aid in two world wars. This cost tens of thousands of Canadian lives but that is apparently forgotten...
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## stegner (23 Jan 2008)

Do you think CIDA should be allocating money to commanders for johnny on the spot and even longer term projects.  I am sure commanders do have discretionary funds, for such activities, but are these monies coming from the DND, CIDA, or DFAIT?  If they are coming soley from DND,  I would say that a bit ridiculous and make the argument that DFAIT can serve a little champagne and caviar and their embassies and high commissions around the world and start ponying up some more cash for Aghanistan.   Seriously more money.   Maybe make it so that even a section commanders will have a small budget and can allocated some money with consent with the OC to needed projects they discover while out on patrol.   I am not sure exactly how things work right now, so apologies if I am out of my lane.  Another thing, Dion what are you thinking with Elizabeth May?  Seriously???  You actually want people to vote for you?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (23 Jan 2008)

Canwest quotes  Ruxted on the report.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=256029


----------



## tdr_aust (23 Jan 2008)

It is an interesting report, though the procurement of medium lift helicopters and UAVs time frame may be a bit tight for reality. (Though there may be someone in the EU NATO sector who is not using them at present).

One thing that does bother me and that is the coherence of civilian and military efforts. The military issue was discussed in Scotland last year anyway and from memory a “plan” is to be presented at the next NATO Defence Ministers this year. (Canada I think is the next meeting place).
The civilian issue is more complex. The complexity lies in the number of civilian groups with little fingers in the pie. I have seen this in other places. The result is usually disorganisation and groups though delivering relief etc tend to get disjoint in what is the real end result. Also monies tend to get lost and “misplaced” so total effort is reduced compared to the actual monies obtained. Here I will leave out the delicate aspect of “in house costs”.
Kirkhill’s comment and to quote:


> There seems to be no accountable mechanism in place for delivering targeted aid. I think someone is going to have to invent it.


Is correct. It does become imperative that it is centralised and coordinated properly. This though will be politically a mine field as each civilian group has a perceived ‘right on its side’ concept. Ok some are better than others, but I do see it as being not easy.
The simplest is for a centralised system to say we need X and allocate civi group Y to procure and deliver it. Then it can be distributed. But that is just one simple example.

As for an additional BG to work with the Canadians, that makes sense. I suspect that is behinds Mr Gates’s intent with the Marine's 24th MEU coming in under the Canadian Command.
I think he is misguided in saying it’s a one off tour.
In that I would agree with tomahawk6 in that an US Army brigade o USMC MEU comes along after the current 24th MEU tour ends though it has a bigger chance possibly of being a Marine MEU than Army. Something to do with the marines wanting out of Iraq.

Anyway my just my opinion from far away.


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Jan 2008)

I just have to say something here:
I read Elizabeth May (GreenParty) has spoken out in favor of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, did I read right?

Let me say this:
A Pte who has been to Afghanistan has more foreign policy experience than Ms. May. 

Enough said.


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Jan 2008)

A post at _The Torch_:

Manley Panel: Marines, helicopters and UAVs (and copying)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/afstan-marines-and-helicopters-and-uavs.html

Plus:

Afghanistan: editorial reaction to Manley Report
Summary by Conference of Defence Associations, Jan. 23
http://www.cdaforumcad.ca/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1201119097/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Jan 2008)

An interesting politco-military analysis by Bruce Rolston:

Manley report: the day after
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2008_01_23.html#006322



> Okay, so what's going to happen, or should happen, now that the Manley report is out?
> 
> Well, the big problem now is time. We're running out of it. The existing parliamentary mandate expires next February, and it would take a year for replacement forces from another nation to start spooling up, realistically. So we owe our allies notice. So Manley's idea of deferring a parliamentary debate until after the April Bucharest summit seems unviable. To present a reasonable ultimatum along the lines he proposes at that time means extending the current mandate by at least several months. The Opposition will not agree to that without other changes to the mission, obviously.
> 
> ...



Plus this from Terry Glavin, a thoughtful member of the left (good links in the post):

John Manley's Afghanistan Panel Report And The Historic Mission of The Left
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/01/michael-manleys-afghanistan-panel.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (23 Jan 2008)

The Snapping Turtle article, while pretty clear, concise and probable, still makes me feel like we are running away.


----------



## MarkOttawa (23 Jan 2008)

GAP: That, sadly, is Canadian political reality.  I think Mr Rolston is trying to come up with a least worst case scenario that might be sold, as it were.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jan 2008)

Here's [urlhttp://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0801/S00240.htm]what a US State Dep't Deputy Spokesperson had to say[/url] about the report - sounds like generic messaging, as opposed to specific messaging developed JUST for the report - FYI:

(....)

QUESTION: Yesterday the Canadian Government released a report from an independent commission that recommended that Canada's military mission in Afghanistan continue beyond February 2009 if certain conditions are met, including that NATO or other countries provide 1,000 more troops to help with the fighting. What is the reaction of the U.S. Government to that report -- out of that recommendation?

(Tom Casey, Deputy Spokesman):  Well, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the report of and by itself. But look, we all of us -- the United States, Canada and all NATO members have an obligation to meet the commitments that we've made for Afghanistan. As you know, the United States - Secretary Gates has just recently recommended the addition of over 3,000 Marine forces to reinforce U.S. efforts there. And we continue to believe that it's imperative that all NATO allies do what they can and make the commitments that they can to support the mission in Afghanistan. As you certainly know, Canada has been a leading player in the efforts there. The United States very much appreciates the contributions that Canada's made and we know that Canadian soldiers are fighting and dying in that effort to help move Afghanistan forward. So certainly we are appreciative of the efforts Canada's made We'd like to see those efforts continue. But we do recognize the fact that all of us in the NATO alliance have more that we can do.

QUESTION: If those conditions were met would you welcome Canada staying in Afghanistan indefinitely, beyond 2009?

MR. CASEY: Well, again, the decision on whether to remain and to what extent and level are really decisions for the Canadian Government and the Canadian people to make. Certainly, we believe it's important, though, that all of us as NATO allies do our part, and we'd encourage Canada as well as all other NATO members to make whatever contributions they're able to this mission. 

(....)


----------



## stegner (24 Jan 2008)

> Manley report spreads chaos in Punditland
> Posted: January 23, 2008, 1:06 PM by Kelly McParland
> Blogs, Afghanistan, Ottawa, Canada, Politics, Comment
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Jan 2008)

...Don Martin, also our own, says it’s a message to Stephen Harper. The mission “is a mess,” There are too few troops, and  those doing the fighting “are ill-equipped, poorly co-ordinated and losing ground to the enemy while failing to deliver adequate humanitarian aid or reconstruction help to average Afghans.” It’s “put up or shut up” for the prime minister...


Mr Martin, the CF mission is to deny terrain to the Taliban. It is the duty of the civilian partners to deliver humanitarian aid or reconstruction. We're doing our part, I can't say the same for the rest. Until you're willing to gain a full perspective on the mission... put up or shut up.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2008)

Stegner

Sort out your post.

Give us the link to the article.

What is the quote and what is your comments?


----------



## stegner (24 Jan 2008)

My entire previous post was quoted and the article may be found in full here: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/01/23/manley-report-spreads-chaos-in-punditland.aspx  

Apologies for the confusion.  

No comments really.  I just thought it was interesting that there would be so many interpretations to the report in the media.  What ever happened to reporting the facts instead of making wild guesses?   Sadly, the Manley Report was viewed in terms of a political battle.  With them guessing who won: Dion or Harper?  In this reporting, the mission itself served as a background, instead of the very real and dangerous battle in which the CF is now engaged.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> My entire previous post was quoted and the article may be found in full here: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/01/23/manley-report-spreads-chaos-in-punditland.aspx
> 
> Apologies for the confusion.
> 
> No comments really.  I just thought it was interesting that there would be so many interpretations to the report in the media.  What ever happened to reporting the facts instead of making wild guesses?.............



Sorry.  It just looked like you had added comments at the bottom:

"Kelly McParland is Politics Editor of the National Post. He hasn't got a clue what Manley was on about either"

I guess there are some different "Schools of Journalism" in the various Press these days.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (24 Jan 2008)

Admittedly, I haven't read the report, but the idea that the difference between success or failure in Afghanistan is only 1,000 (combat) soldiers is somewhat surprising.  I would think that more would be needed to change the outcome from one certainty to the other!  Either way, suspect that a lot of these analysts are ignoring France as a potential 'partner' for the CF in Afghanistan (vis-a-vis the Manley Report specifically, I realise they already have a presence in the country), the odds of which I suspect are relatively high.


----------



## McG (24 Jan 2008)

Aden_Gatling said:
			
		

> Admittedly, I haven't read the report, but the idea that the difference between success or failure in Afghanistan is only 1,000 (combat) soldiers is somewhat surprising.


By my read of the report 1,000 soldiers is the difference between the status quo & the bare minimum in Kandahar alone.


----------



## gage (24 Jan 2008)

I like the ideas of Manley's report if that counts for something.
I do have one small problem with it and that's if the UN doesn't step up
it seems the public doesn't understand all the reasons where there( not that i do either)
 one good reason is to help the afghan people, but i believe we are helping are self's all so. 
The general public isn't scared of going about there life they don't have a little voice 
in there head thinking about the group they are with and the amount of people around 
hoping that today is not the day it comes to Canada.
I believe it will one day come to are nation but if we fix the problem at the source than maybe 
not as bad as it could be


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Jan 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> By my read of the report 1,000 soldiers is the difference between the status quo & the bare minimum in Kandahar alone.



How about a more political read?  "1K is the minimum required to show NATO really DOES want to get 'er done in AFG"

Also, just spotted this as well, with USA SecDef on the "Manley Thousand" and how the USMC mini-surge doesn't count:



> (....)
> Q     Mr. Secretary, this week the Canadian government issued a report from an independent commission that said that the Canadian military should only stay in Kandahar, the Kandahar area, if NATO can come up with another thousand troops in February 2009 to help reinforce what's going on down there. *Can you see a scenario where the U.S. Marines who are headed to that area could stay beyond seven months to help the Canadians and the others down there? *
> 
> SEC. GATES: *No, the Marines have -- this is a one-time plus-up, this 3,200 Marines that we're sending over there.* But I have started a dialogue with my NATO colleagues about falling in behind the Marines when the Marines come out, for others to go in and take on some of the responsibilities that they have -- that they will have carried out.
> ...



CBC Online's take on this answer:



> U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that 3,200 marines headed to southern Afghanistan will not provide the Canadian Forces there with the additional troop support recommended by the Manley report.  The marines, slated to stay for seven months following their spring departure, will be on a one-time assignment, Gates said during a Pentagon press briefing.  He said he will be putting pressure on NATO to provide more troops to bolster coalition war efforts in Afghanistan's turbulent south.....


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Jan 2008)

M. Dion starting to see the light (usual copyright disclaimer)?
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=fb499128-ef13-4f21-a853-9403250cf4c8



> Liberal leader Stéphane Dion yesterday reiterated his party's position on the Afghan mission -- that Canada's involvement in combat must end in 2009 -- but added his party was "open to debate."
> 
> An independent panel led by John Manley, a former Liberal cabinet minister, this week released its report on Canada's mission in southern Afghanistan. The five-member panel called for Canada to remain in the region beyond the mission's scheduled end in 2009, provided NATO allies offer additional troops.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## JesseWZ (25 Jan 2008)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> This is a reasonable recommendation, Mr. Dion said. "There is no rush to vote right away."



My head is spinning. Wasn't there a thread or a link or something on here awhile ago that kept tabs on Mr. Dions political merry go rounds?


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 Jan 2008)

Scott Taylor, in a column dismissing the report, accused Canada of a racist policy:
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2008/01/25/4792858-sun.html


> ...
> The big recommendation from Manley was, of course, the shift from focusing on combat to the training the Afghan National Army (ANA).
> 
> Once again, this is something the Canadian military has been promoting for months.
> ...



How low...

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## NL_engineer (25 Jan 2008)

:

Don't these people have anything better to do then bash the CF  :


----------



## FSTO (25 Jan 2008)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Scott Taylor, in a column dismissing the report, accused Canada of a racist policy:
> http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2008/01/25/4792858-sun.html
> How low...
> 
> ...



Our ever astute cpl has just discovered that a military needs a logistic tail. This is his new mantra and now that the NATO trainers are getting soldiers in the field, he feels that it is a failure that there isn't a fully modern logistic and administrative tail that is at the same level as the NATO armies in theatre.

There is just no pleasing some people.


----------



## JesseWZ (25 Jan 2008)

I guess he doesn't realize that it takes at least 6-8 years to put a doctor through med school...
Or minimum 2 years to put a sup tech through training...
What about engineers, those courses take forever...


----------



## sgf (25 Jan 2008)

two years to put a supply tech thru training? are you talking about their trade qualification course?


----------



## JesseWZ (26 Jan 2008)

I meant between enrollment to the date that they were deemed an operational supply tech. However I am a bit outside my lane I must admit so I could be wrong.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Jan 2008)

>To send Afghans into battle alongside our soldiers with a drastically reduced standard of training, weaponry, and protective equipment is racist.

WTF?  Is this drivel what passes for informed commentary?  We don't send Afghans into battle; Afghans send Afghans into battle.  It is quite a unique feat for a people to be racist against themselves.  I'll tell you what most people would find racist: the notion that Afghans are too primitive or violent or ill-prepared to manage their own affairs, so that we must do it all for them.

As badly misused as the word "racist" is and despite the frequency with which it happens, that statement certainly wins the prize for Least Intelligent Use of All Time.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Jan 2008)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >To send Afghans into battle alongside our soldiers with a drastically reduced standard of training, weaponry, and protective equipment is racist.
> 
> WTF?  Is this drivel what passes for informed commentary?  We don't send Afghans into battle; Afghans send Afghans into battle.  It is quite a unique feat for a people to be racist against themselves.  *I'll tell you what most people would find racist: the notion that Afghans are too primitive or violent or ill-prepared to manage their own affairs, so that we must do it all for them.*
> As badly misused as the word "racist" is and despite the frequency with which it happens, that statement certainly wins the prize for Least Intelligent Use of All Time.


You hit the nail right on the head!  The "brown people" aren't really people (so sayeth the "enlightened" white people), therefore, we excuse their acts when the same act, done by a "white" person, would be viewed (rightly so) as inexcusable.  Makes me shake my head.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (27 Jan 2008)

It's a favorite tactic of the left to try and label an argument an "ism" ie racism, sexism, etc. They then believe that the debate is over and they have won.


----------



## sgf (27 Jan 2008)

interesting article in The Toronto Sun, from Eric Margolis

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2008/01/27/4796414-sun.php


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Jan 2008)

sgf: Margolis is a raging anti-Afghan mission _poseur_, to whose words absolutely no worth should be given.  "Interesting" my...He's the guy in 2001 who said, as efforts to overthrow the Taliban were getting underway, that those efforts would face grave problems from "the brutal Afghan winter".  My...

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Teflon (27 Jan 2008)

> sgf: Margolis is a raging anti-Afghan mission poseur, to whose words absolutely no worth should be given.  "Interesting" my...He's the guy in 2001 who said, as efforts to overthrow the Taliban were getting underway, that those efforts would face grave problems from "the brutal Afghan winter".  My...
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I find Margolis' main motivation to be Anti-Americian more then anti-Afghan mission, as he sees Afghanistan as America's war, he doesn't like our present government because everything that comes out of their yaps isn't insulting or negative to Bush and U.S., He would advocate surrender if Canada was attacked and the U.S. offered to help us in defence. The man is a one issue journalist and anything he writes about will some how relate back to his Anti-Americanism, even if you have wait till the next days column for it to spew to the surface.


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Jan 2008)

Saving Afghanistan

_National Post_, Jan, 26  
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=265065



> Re: We Need NATO Help: Manley, Jan. 23.
> 
> The Manley panel correctly identified the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan by recommending that 1,000 extra troops be sent to Kandahar. However, NATO overall would need to double its ground troop capacity to 80,000 and remove all caveats of where troops are deployed, if it is to have any chance of halting the insurgency's momentum. Indeed, recent Senlis Council research indicates that the Taliban now have a presence in 54% of Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Jan 2008)

Prime Minister Harper misspeaks--he has just given a statement supporting the recommendations of the Manley panel (video second link). 
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080128/harper_manley_080128/20080128?hub=TopStories
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg&hub=TopStories&video_link_high=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2008/01/28/ctvvideologger3_201190437_1201539931_500kbps.wmv&video_link_low=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2008/01/28/ctvvideologger3_201190436_1201538382_218kbps.wmv&clip_start=00:08:16.26&clip_end=00:09:46.58&clip_caption=CTV%20Newsnet:%20Stephen%20Harper%20speaks%20from%20Ottawa&clip_id=ctvnews.20080128.00231000-00231073-clip1&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20080128&slug=harper_manley_080128&archive=CTVNews
Then, near the end of answering questions from the media (around 1241 Eastern Time), he either lied or demonstrated he does not know what his government is doing.

Mr Harper was asked about the Manley panel's demand that new medium-lift helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) be acquired by next February to support the Afghan mission. He replied that these are "on order" and mentioned difficulties in securing delivery places on already-committed production lines. But neither the helicopters nor the UAVs are "on order".

The government itself recently officially stated that, while the helicopter procurement process for the helicopters is well underway, the award of an actual contract is only "expected by the end of 2008." (See "3. Medium- to Heavy-Lift Helicopters" at link.)
http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=372519

As for UAVs, the air force officer in charge of the project said in October 2007 that "...officials hope to get the first aircraft into Afghanistan "within months" of the contract being signed next year." 
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/10/05/pf-4553523.html

No contract has yet been signed.  Nothing is "on order". Pitiful.

The prime minister went on to say that the government would look to NATO to provide the required capabilities by February 2009.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jan 2008)

First of all realize Eric Margolis IS anti-American...period. He's rarely had anything good to say about the USA, and eve more so when there is a sitting Republican President.

Secondly, Scott Taylor is not an expert in anything. He did his time in the military to launch his journalism career. His magazines were at one time on the service flights, until he got a bit too critical of NDHQ. Then it was canned.
He loves to criticize senior officers, but Mr. Taylor has never spent a day in their shoes. He does not have or know the responsibilites these gentlemen have undertaken.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Jan 2008)

And what political decision would be complete without polling data?  Survey says....

*Canadians Receive Manley Plan Cautiously*
Country Still Split On Mission
Ipsos Reid news release, 26 Jan 08
News release - Detailed tables

On the heels of the Manley report concerning the future of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, a new Ipsos Reid poll conducted exclusively on behalf of CanWest News Service and Global Television finds that Canadians have given the recommendations a mixed review. One third of Canadians (35%) believe that the recommendations made by Manley comprise a ‘good’ (29%) or ‘great’ plan (6%) for Canada’s troops currently stationed in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

The recommendation that Canada gradually shift its focus to a less combative role after February of 2009, provided that 1,000 additional troops be deployed to Afghanistan by Canada's allies, and that Canada receives new medium-lift helicopters and other aircraft to assist with the job, was given a ‘fair’ assessment by nearly four in ten (36%) Canadians. One quarter (22%), though, say that these recommendations are a ‘bad plan’, while 7% had no opinion.

Regardless of the panel’s report, the country remains split on support for the current mission in Afghanistan. Fully one half (50%) of Canadians (down one point since August of last year) indicate that they support (22% strongly/28% somewhat) ‘the use of Canada’s troops for combat efforts against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan’. However, nearly one half (46%) of the country remains opposed (27% strongly/19% somewhat) to the mission, an increase of one point since August. Four percent (4%) of Canadians do not know if they support or oppose the mission.

Finally, if given the option to decide the fate of Canada’s troops after the current combat mission expires in February of 2009, 37% of Canadians would opt to bring our troops home, a decrease of seven points since October of 2007. Fourteen percent (14%) would extend our current mission (unchanged), while nearly one half (45%) of Canadians would have our troops remain in Afghanistan but ‘have them do something like train Afghani soldiers or police officers’ (up five points since October). Four percent (4%) do not know what they would have the troops do beyond next February.

Regional Highlights….

    * Residents of Atlantic Canada are the most likely (47%) to say that the plan is at least ‘good’, followed by those in Ontario (39%), British Columbia (37%), Alberta (32%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (31%) and Quebec (27%). However, residents of Ontario (26%) and Quebec (22%) are most likely to say that this is a ‘bad plan’ for Canadian troops.

    * A majority of residents of Alberta (61%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (59%), Ontario (56%), Atlantic Canada (54%) and British Columbia (53%) support the current mission in Afghanistan. Just one third (33%) Quebecers support the mission.

    * Men (54%) are significantly more likely than women (47%) to support the mission in Afghanistan.

    * Residents of Saskatchewan and Manitoba (42%) and Quebec (41%) are more likely than those living in BC (38%), Atlantic Canada (36%), Ontario (36%) and Alberta (25%) to say that the troops should come home after February of next year.

    * Albertans (18%) are the most likely to want an extension to the current mission, followed by those in British Columbia (15%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (15%), Quebec (14%), Ontario (13%) and Atlantic Canada (9%).

    * Albertans (53%) are also the most likely to say that Canada’s troops should remain in Afghanistan but be redirected to a less combative role, followed by those in Atlantic Canada (49%), Ontario (47%), British Columbia (46%), Quebec (42%) and Saskatchewan and Manitoba (35%). 

These are the findings of an Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of CanWest News Service and Global Television from January 22 to January 24, 2008. For the survey, a representative randomly selected sample of 1001 adult Canadians was interviewed by telephone. With a sample of this size, the results are considered accurate to within ±3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, of what they would have been had the entire adult population of Canada been polled. The margin of error will be larger within regions and for other sub-groupings of the survey population. These data were weighted to ensure that the sample's regional and age/sex composition reflects that of the actual Canadian population according to Census data.....


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Jan 2008)

Further to this comment on helicopters and UAVs for Afstan,
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/70016/post-666852.html#msg666852

from a _Globe and Mail_ story:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080128.wharpermanley0128/BNStory/National/home



> The government has already placed its order for helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles and is working with allies to secure them quickly, said Mr. Harper.



Really?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FSTO (28 Jan 2008)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Further to this comment on helicopters and UAVs for Afstan,
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/70016/post-666852.html#msg666852
> 
> from a _Globe and Mail_ story:
> ...



Maybe we are going to get more Cyclones?


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Jan 2008)

FSTO:  ;D

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (29 Jan 2008)

Helicopter and UAV update--the prime minister's communcations director does not exactly clarify things adequately--see the last paragraph in this excerpt from a _Globe and Mail_ story, Jan. 29:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080129.HARPEREQUIP29//TPStory/National



> ...government officials later said the Prime Minister jumped the gun and that they are still trying to find the best way to obtain the equipment quickly...
> 
> Mr. Harper said the government has already started to act on those two fronts.
> 
> ...



That's not the same as "on order for some time". Greg Weston devotes a whole column to the matter in the _Ottawa Sun_:

PM in spin cycle
Harper needs to come clean on Canada's war effort in Afghanistan
http://ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/Weston_Greg/2008/01/29/4799385-sun.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## newfin (29 Jan 2008)

I am just anxious to see how this plays out now that the PM has endoresed the plan.  I can see how he will approach the extra 1000 troops - press the Allies for them.  Good luck with that.

But what are the possible solutions to solve the two equipment issues?  Obviously we are not going to be able to purchase any choppers in that time frame - not even used ones.  So how are the brains that make plans and decisions planning to proceed?  Ask the French to provide them?  Ask the Germans?  Might have better luck with the French.  Cyclones are not an option.  The Sea King idea has been dismissed on this site a dozen times.  The Chinooks have not even been ordered yet.  Our military is not interested in Russian helicopters or any that are piloted by civilians.  So, the only thing I can think of is to have an ally step forward to provide them.

Same goes for UAV's.  Although they can be fielded by us much quicker than helos but still not likely within a year.


----------

