1000 or 5000? How many more troops does Kandahar need?

[sgf]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080222.wafghanistan0222/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

GRAEME SMITH

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

February 23, 2008 at 12:00 AM EST

KHAKREZ, Afghanistan — Canada needs as many as 5,000 professional NATO soldiers — double its current force — to hold Kandahar's key districts, a senior commander says, suggesting that previous demands for extra troops are not enough for basic security in the province.

"If countries like Germany and France were not so afraid of committing forces, this problem would be solved readily," Major Richard Moffet, deputy commander of Canada's battle group, said in an interview.

He listed five Kandahar districts and suggested Canada needs to double its current troop strength of 2,500 to keep the Taliban away from those important areas.

The Manley Report recommened an additional 1000 troops, yet here this Major is saying thats not enough. I wonder how this is going to go over with the Canadian public. Interesting to see how Moffet slagged off both Germany and France and I also wonder if this was cleared by the CDS before speaking out.

 

[The Bread Guy]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080222.wafghanistan0222/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

The Manley Report recommened an additional 1000 troops, yet here this Major is saying thats not enough. I wonder how this is going to go over with the Canadian public. Interesting to see how Moffet slagged off both Germany and France and I also wonder if this was cleared by the CDS before speaking out.

We'd have to read/hear the WHOLE interview to undestand the context.

If the question was asked, "In a perfect world, how many Canadian troops would be needed to reasonably secure Kandahar?", then this response would be the officer's opinion:  " "Easily you could have a brigade of 5,000 Canadians here just for Zhari, Panjwai, Arghandab, Shah Wali Kot and Khakrez, because to be honest, we haven't been to a few places in Panjwai yet," he said. "

This tidbit, though, is harder to place in a more benign context:  "If countries like Germany and France were not so afraid of committing forces, this problem would be solved readily," Major Richard Moffet, deputy commander of Canada's battle group, said in an interview. "  If he actually said these words, I think he was outside his lane.

Touching on the earlier comments on coverage of Hillier's speech, if you think English media is herding, and ultra-focussed, how about the French media coverage?  Even with my pisse-pauvre French, the glasses they wear are clear:

Presse Canadienne:  "Mission à Kandahar: le général Hillier veut une mission de combat - Le chef d'état-major du Canada préfère clairement que ses troupes soient affectées à une mission de combat si elles doivent rester à Kandahar, en Afghanistan, après février 2009.  Vendredi matin, le général Rick Hillier était au même micro que le premier ministre Stephen Harper la veille. Il a prononcé, à son tour, un discours devant la Conférence des associations de la défense....."

Radio-Canada:  " Hillier pour, Duceppe contre - Le chef d'état-major de la Défense canadienne, Rick Hillier, réclame un appui fort des parlementaires canadiens à la motion du gouvernement conservateur sur le prolongement de la mission canadienne en Afghanistan.  Le général Hiller estime que les militaires canadiens ont besoin de savoir qu'ils ont l'appui de la population et que leur mission est viable. Il affirme que les talibans surveillent attentivement ce débat sur la mission canadienne et qu'ils pourraient accroître leur offensive au moindre signe de désengagement.  Rick Hillier croit aussi que ces militaires ont besoin d'un mandat clair pour mener leur mission de combat contre les insurgés talibans, et préfère que ses troupes soient affectées à une mission de combat si elles doivent rester à Kandahar après février 2009 ...."

As someone way wiser than me said earlier, conflict sells....

 

[Edward Campbell]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080222.wafghanistan0222/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

The Manley Report recommened an additional 1000 troops, yet here this Major is saying thats not enough. I wonder how this is going to go over with the Canadian public. Interesting to see how Moffet slagged off both Germany and France and I also wonder if this was cleared by the CDS before speaking out.

Maj. Moffet is doing nothing more, nor less, than giving an honest assessment. He, unlike the all politicians, almost all civil servants and most senior military officers (not to mention the ignorant masses in academe and the commentariat), knows the ground and the local people and the enemy. He has, almost certainly, made a common sense appreciation of the situation, and arrived at a conclusion I, personally, have head from other officers who have served in the battle-group and from a few civilians with lots and lots of time in Kandahar.

Anyone who says that we can or should stop fighting and focus on training and reconstruction or even just "come home" is terminally stupid - too dumb to breathe without help. Manley's 1,000 more is a minimum and it's only a useful minimum if ISAF can find 'caveat-free', tough, well trained, professional soldiers - there are more than enough Europeans sitting behind high walls in safe compounds. We need 1,000 fighters, serving outside the wire, supported by a helicopters and artillery, etc and sustained by a good logistics 'tail.'

As for slagging the Euro-trash: good on him! Nothing like a little undiplomatic honesty to make a few journalists see the light. There is, probably, nothing much wrong with French and German soldiers - it is the French and German governments, giving effect to the will of the French and German people that cause the problems. The people of France and Germany want to run and hide; that's their prerogative and, for many, their tradition, too. It's sad that some good soldiers have to be tarred with brush of cowardice, but it is, of necessity, a big brush.

 

[sgf]

Let me suggest that it is not Maj Moffets job to slag off Euro Trash as you call Germany and France nor make these sorts of comments.  found it interesting to read that DND had no comment to make.

 

[George Wallace]

Let me suggest that it is not Maj Moffets job to slag off Euro Trash as you call Germany and France nor make these sorts of comments.  found it interesting to read that DND had no comment to make.

sgf

Your comments really are not indicative of a person who has any sort of experience in this field.  When the people on the ground, doing the work, comment on their abilities to do that job, it is not up to you or the Press to second guess them.  Go to a Town Council meeting some time when the Police, Fire or any other of the Emergency Services are putting forward their assessments of what they can and cannot do and you will find that many of the same arguments are being used. 

As for why DND would have no comment; why should they?  Isn't that for DFAIT and the PMO to do; to comment on the political situations in other nations and our relations with them?  DND doesn't do that.  All Canadian do have the right to a "Personal Opinion" and perhaps that is what you are trying to muzzle with your comments on the Major and having said that, I am surprised you haven't said anything about LCol Juneau.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Let me suggest that it is not Maj Moffets job to slag off Euro Trash as you call Germany and France nor make these sorts of comments.  found it interesting to read that DND had no comment to make.

Suggest all you want.

Journalists are constantly posing trick questions in an ongoing effort to manufacture some controversy in order to sell soap and used cars - the real raison d'être of the media. Graeme Smith got a ‘newsworthy’ response from Maj. Moffet; good on him for asking an interesting question, for a change; good on Maj. Moffet for giving an honest, forthright answer.

I have no doubt that Maj. Moffet will receive forty-five shame-on-yous and three stand-in-the-corners from the battalion’s worth of heavily armed civilians public affairs officers resident in Ottawa and from the shadowy communications experts in the PMO, but what are they going to do? Send him somewhere cold, dirty and dangerous? That’s where he is. That’s why his honest opinion matters just as Stéphane’s Dion’s ill-informed one doesn’t.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Journalists are constantly posing trick questions in an ongoing effort to manufacture some controversy in order to sell soap and used cars - the real raison d'être of the media. Graeme Smith got a ‘newsworthy’ response from Maj. Moffet; good on him for asking an interesting question, for a change; good on Maj. Moffet for giving an honest, forthright answer.

Bang on, which is why I'm taking to caveating media quotes with the "if this was quoted properly" disclaimer.

Go to a Town Council meeting some time when the Police, Fire or any other of the Emergency Services are putting forward their assessments of what they can and cannot do and you will find that many of the same arguments are being used.

True enough, but how many of said Emergency Service people slag, say, the Emergency services of neighbouring municipalities in a PUBLIC forum?  Or the municipal councils of the neighbours?  How do you think it would play if a Fire Chief said, ""If municipalities like Blogginstown and Hooterville were not so afraid of committing their services, our problem would be solved readily" with media in earshot?

Isn't that for DFAIT and the PMO to do; to comment on the political situations in other nations and our relations with them?  DND doesn't do that. 

And as refreshing as the good Major Moffatt's remarks are (and however much I agree that said gov'ts are afraid), that's all I'm saying when I say he's outta his lane.

All Canadian do have the right to a "Personal Opinion"

Maj. Moffet is doing nothing more, nor less, than giving an honest assessment. He, unlike the all politicians, almost all civil servants and most senior military officers (not to mention the ignorant masses in academe and the commentariat), knows the ground and the local people and the enemy. He has, almost certainly, made a common sense appreciation of the situation....

I thought it was a question of having to foresake some right to expressing your own personal opinions when speaking as a representative of the military - otherwise, why all the ensuing fracas over this and this?

I have no doubt that Maj. Moffet will receive forty-five shame-on-yous and three stand-in-the-corners from the battalion’s worth of heavily armed civilians public affairs officers resident in Ottawa and from the shadowy communications experts in the PMO, but what are they going to do? Send him somewhere cold, dirty and dangerous? That’s where he is.

I stand to be corrected, but wouldn't his immediate boss/bosses get said missives, at which point they, as good commanders/leaders, would "triage" said advice before talking to him?  As a supervisor myself, I've been known to take WAY more crap for a subordinate's issue than I pass on to that person because I know the REST of the story.

If I was his CO, I would expect crap from my boss and other already-mentioned wonks, but while telling the Major, "ya know, ya coulda put that more politely," I don't think I would blast him anywhere NEAR as much as those soiling their silks north of me on the org chart are likely blasting his bosses.  Again, anyone with more recent command experience/less naivete than me should jump in and straighten me out if this likely isn't to happen.

That’s why his honest opinion matters just as Stéphane’s Dion’s ill-informed one doesn’t.

Here, here...

 

[sgf]

sgf

Your comments really are not indicative of a person who has any sort of experience in this field.  When the people on the ground, doing the work, comment on their abilities to do that job, it is not up to you or the Press to second guess them.  Go to a Town Council meeting some time when the Police, Fire or any other of the Emergency Services are putting forward their assessments of what they can and cannot do and you will find that many of the same arguments are being used. 

As for why DND would have no comment; why should they?  Isn't that for DFAIT and the PMO to do; to comment on the political situations in other nations and our relations with them?  DND doesn't do that.  All Canadian do have the right to a "Personal Opinion" and perhaps that is what you are trying to muzzle with your comments on the Major and having said that, I am surprised you haven't said anything about LCol Juneau.

It certainly is up to me to make comments on what  Moffett said when they are reported in the media. Especially when the numbers contradict the lastest Government's numbers. Whos right? How many troops are really needed? This interview is only going to mud the waters even more. That is unless Moffett was speaking on orders from the CDS/PMO, in an attempt to test the waters regarding requesting more troops in Afghanistan.

I have been to Town Hall Meetings and its the Chief of Police and the Mayor who are doing the speaking, not the policeman on the beat. If any one else speaks, they certainly parrot the party line.
All Canadians certainly do have a right to their personal opinion, but not  in the circumstance that Moffett was in.It would be interesting to know if his remarks had been cleared with his superiors before he spoke.
There is an interesting story in todays Chronicle Herald

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/World/1039880.html

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — The soldier hobbled over the rough gravel ground, his crutches slipping on the rocks.

He’d been hurt in an explosion from a roadside bomb, he said, and had two more weeks to go in his tour in Kandahar.

He couldn’t wait to get out.

"We’re all delusional if we think we can fix this place by tomorrow," he muttered.

"It won’t be tomorrow. Not even next year. It won’t be fixed for years."

Even as the Canadian government gets ready to set a firm date for the end of the mission in Afghanistan, soldiers involved in the work say a deadline means nothing in Afghanistan.

It’s not that they want Canada to remain in Afghanistan indefinitely. Some, like the injured soldier, wish the mission would end much sooner than the newly proposed pullout date of 2011.

But in Kandahar, the focus isn’t on what might happen in a matter of years but what can happen in months.

"We come for seven months, we focus on seven months," said a soldier named Adrian, 26, who asked that his rank and last name not be used.

"There is an evolution over that time, short things you see immediately. But it’s impossible to know what will happen after you leave."

Interesting this soldier didnt want to give his last name or rank. Lets hope that neither he  nor Moffett dont suffer any  speaking their personal opinion.  Reading both articles,it seems that way more than 5000 extra troops are going to be needed for a lot longer than 2011. I wonder if that will happen.

 

[sgf]

Suggest all you want.

Journalists are constantly posing trick questions in an ongoing effort to manufacture some controversy in order to sell soap and used cars - the real raison d'être of the media. Graeme Smith got a ‘newsworthy’ response from Maj. Moffet; good on him for asking an interesting question, for a change; good on Maj. Moffet for giving an honest, forthright answer.

I have no doubt that Maj. Moffet will receive forty-five shame-on-yous and three stand-in-the-corners from the battalion’s worth of heavily armed civilians public affairs officers resident in Ottawa and from the shadowy communications experts in the PMO, but what are they going to do? Send him somewhere cold, dirty and dangerous? That’s where he is. That’s why his honest opinion matters just as Stéphane’s Dion’s ill-informed one doesn’t.

I wonder what the trick question was that was asked?

 

[The Bread Guy]

I wonder what the trick question was that was asked?

In case you missed it.....

If the question was asked, "In a perfect world, how many Canadian troops would be needed to reasonably secure Kandahar?", then this response would be the officer's opinion:  " "Easily you could have a brigade of 5,000 Canadians here just for Zhari, Panjwai, Arghandab, Shah Wali Kot and Khakrez, because to be honest, we haven't been to a few places in Panjwai yet," he said. "

In this scenario, how reasonable is this summary, then, in that article's lead:  "Canada needs as many as 5,000 professional NATO soldiers — double its current force — to hold Kandahar's key districts, a senior commander says, suggesting that previous demands for extra troops are not enough for basic security in the province."

"We could use...." is NOT the same as "What we NEED is x, because we don't have enough...." 

 

[armyvern]

I wonder what the trick question was that was asked?

No doubt, something with a little bit of a slant on it -- which he called, based upon his EXPERIENCE ON the ground. Something you lack. Obviously.

Keep commenting, keep questioning -- you are indeed entitled to it. But, I'll take it from actual SMEs over political spin or a media slant any day.

There may be a doubt in your uniformed mind, but there's no doubt in mine that he answered whatever question he WAS asked ... in an honest manner which reflected and spoke to the details of the question and the boots on the ground experience that he is privvy to given his current circumstances and surroundings (a very important distcinction between YOUR ideas and actuality).

You are trolling again.

 

[George Wallace]

sgf

Your comments really make me wonder who you are.  You don't seem to fit this profile in my eyes: Rank:  ex WO; MOC:  ex 831; Mil Exp:  retired after 28 years in the Military.  Why do I say that, you may ask.  Why, because you don't seem to have two clues about how to handle the Press and what the policies are when dealing with the Press.  As I said earlier, everyone is permitted their opinion, including the Major and LCol who are quoted in that Globe and Mail release.  As long as they are not representing themselves as "official DND or CF representatives", which they are not in this case, as well as in the case of the young soldier you quoted, then they are as free as most other Canadians to comment.  Yes, they should have PAO briefings and in some cases PAO approval to make "official" statements, but they are not muzzled as you seem to think they should or are supposed to be.  

I wonder what your comments would have been had these items not made the news.  Would you have been crying censorship and the individuals of the military are muzzled by their superiors?  I look at your posting style as being nothing more that rabblerousing (and that is being polite).  I guess you may be trying some of those "trick questions", yourself, here on this site, with your posting pattern.

I, "personally", find your line of reason and questioning totally out of line here.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I wonder what the trick question was that was asked?

Most likely it was a simple, clear, straightforward question, posed by a guy who really wanted a clear, direct, honest answer - as well as one that will sell more soap.

But, milnewstb is right, Maj. Moffet did stray out of his lanes and into an old, well marked, journalistic trap.

I'm afraid, however, that the public affairs ‘system’ (put in place long before Stephen Harper arrived on the scene, by the way) is not designed, maybe is incapable of giving a direct, honest answer to a clear straightforward question posed by a guy who really does want to know the facts.

Caveat lector: I'm not a big fan of the communications or public affairs or propaganda business. I appreciate that, here in the 21st century information age, 'we' need to have an effective communications ‘system’ (strategy and tactics) because the ‘war’ is not just tanks and guns and IEDs on some remote, dusty plain, it is also all about public opinion – ours and theirs and others’ too. That being admitted, I'm not happy with the PR games that I think are being played in Ottawa by journalists, public affairs specialists and political operatives. I believe a little honesty and openness would go a long way to winning the PR battle in Canada but I find this government to be especially ‘economical with the truth.’

With special regard to DND’s public affairs, I wish we could go back to a simpler time when the MND had a team of (civilian) hacks and flacks and spin doctors and the military had public information officers who gave factual answers to questions that could be answered that way and referred all the ‘why’ questions to the minister's press agents.

 

[sgf]

sgf

Your comments really make me wonder who you are.  You don't seem to fit this profile in my eyes: Rank:  ex WO; MOC:  ex 831; Mil Exp:  retired after 28 years in the Military.  Why do I say that, you may ask.  Why, because you don't seem to have two clues about how to handle the Press and what the policies are when dealing with the Press.  As I said earlier, everyone is permitted their opinion, including the Major and LCol who are quoted in that Globe and Mail release.  As long as they are not representing themselves as "official DND or CF representatives", which they are not in this case, as well as in the case of the young soldier you quoted, then they are as free as most other Canadians to comment.  Yes, they should have PAO briefings and in some cases PAO approval to make "official" statements, but they are not muzzled as you seem to think they should or are supposed to be.  

I wonder what your comments would have been had these items not made the news.  Would you have been crying censorship and the individuals of the military are muzzled by their superiors?  I look at your posting style as being nothing more that rabblerousing (and that is being polite).  I guess you may be trying some of those "trick questions", yourself, here on this site, with your posting pattern.

I, "personally", find your line of reason and questioning totally out of line here.

George Wallace,what I find interesting about your post is because I dont fall into the majority way of thinking on this site, my profile is immediately questioned. Its not so difficult for me to think that there are many in the military or ex military that have similar beliefs to mine. When I found this site, I had hoped that other points of view would be at least debated and not ridiculed.
When I was in the military, it was taught on basic training and other courses that the rank and file did not voice their public opinion to the media, especially if their personal opinion differed from the party line.  I also do not think things are much different now, for instance look at that other story I posted about Aiden. There is a reason he did not give his rank nor last name. Moffett is probably right in what he said. In fact even more than an extra 5000 troops will  probably be needed to win this war in Afghanistan. He is no doubt a brave man for speaking up. He is well aware of the Manley Report, and the Government position for an additional 1000 more, so I wonder how frustrated he has to be for saying what he did. I think the article will only serve to confuse the average Canadian. If more are needed, why arent more being asked for now? Let me also say that Moffett, who was in uniform and in Afghanistan was indeed representing the Cdn Military  and not just expressing his own personal opinion.

 

[George Wallace]

sgf

CF policies have changed a lot since your day of "do not talk to the Press".  That is what surprises me about your attitude.  As a person with your posted credentials knows, there have been many changes to the Public Affairs briefings and conditions with which members of the CF can talk to the Press.  Unless your credentials should read R831, I would think that you would be quite familiar with these regulations.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is an interesting digression, moderators, but it is pretty far removed from the various parliamentary motions. I wonder if everything including and after this could be moved to a new :How many troops are really needed?" thread in order to allow those who might be so inclined to focus on the mostion(s).

 

[sgf]

sgf

CF policies have changed a lot since your day of "do not talk to the Press".  That is what surprises me about your attitude.  As a person with your posted credentials knows, there have been many changes to the Public Affairs briefings and conditions with which members of the CF can talk to the Press.  Unless your credentials should read R831, I would think that you would be quite familiar with these regulations.

George Wallace, I dont doubt that times have changed and moved on. Members of the military have always been allowed to talk to the press, as long as it doesnt go against the Government policies. Things havent changed that much.

 

[MarkOttawa]

In fact, as I read his remarks, the Canadian major did not "urge" a doubling of Canadian troop strength (which he would well know is both a practical and political impossibility):

...
He listed five Kandahar districts and suggested Canada needs to double its current troop strength of 2,500 to keep the Taliban away from those important areas.

"Easily you could have a brigade of 5,000 Canadians here just for Zhari, Panjwai, Arghandab, Shah Wali Kot and Khakrez, because to be honest, we haven't been to a few places in Panjwai yet," he said...

He did not suggest a need to double Canadian numbers. Rather he simply said a force of 5,000 Canadians would be nice to have. That's something very different, but the Globe just loves its sensationalist spin that undermines our mission.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[sgf]

Canada needs as many as 5,000 professional NATO soldiers — double its current force — to hold Kandahar's key districts, a senior commander says, suggesting that previous demands for extra troops are not enough for basic security in the province.

 

[MarkOttawa]

sgf: Exactly.  "NATO soldiers" not just Canadians.  The Globe has spun the story like mad.  Moreover that 2,200-strong Marine Expeditionary Unit would seem to go a long way towards meeting the need during the seventh months they are scheduled to be in the south.  I wonder why the reporter did not mention them.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/search?q=meu

Mark
Ottawa