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

[sgf]

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

I do agree that the Globe spun this story, but what media outlet, including any blogs, doesnt spin news clips to their own advantage. I also dont think I mentioned in any posts that it was Canadian troops that are being requested for, I persumed that Moffett was talking about NATO. You are right, the reporter did not mention the Marine Expeditionary Unit, but then neither did Moffett.

 

[Good2Golf]

A few points:

1.  Without a full transcript of the interview between the Graeme Smith, the reporter, and Maj Moffet, there is absolutely no value in speculating what was asked, because it is not known.

2.  A paraphrase versus a direct quote is apparently a concept that some people have trouble understanding.  If there are not direct quotes around something that an interviewee has said, then it is a paraphrase and thus innuendo or shading of the response can easily be added by the reporter.  As MarkOttawa has noted from the article, Maj Moffet was only directly quoted as saying:

DIRECT QUOTE

"If countries like Germany and France were not so afraid of committing forces, this problem would be solved readily,"

DIRECT QUOTE

"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."

PARAPHRASE (in fact qualified by Maj Moffet as personal opinion, not government policy - at least Mr. Smith had the decency to note Moffat's qualification)

Even more than 5,000 NATO troops may be required for the province, Major Moffet said, because beyond the troops needed for the core districts, NATO would also require forces to intercept the Taliban's supply routes in outlying areas.

Emphasizing that the assessment was only his personal opinion, Major Moffet said he would prefer to see the extra soldiers come from a single major country, rather than piecemeal from several contributors.

Read this quote from Mr. Smith's article and, with an open mind, people might gain an appreciation for the very things that Maj Moffet said.

In the same direction, amid the same mountains about 70 kilometres north of Kandahar city, the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry established an outpost known as the Gumbad Platoon House in the spring of 2006. They spent several months patrolling the craggy northern reaches of the province, but Canada's regular forces abandoned the place later that summer as all available troops returned to the heart of the province for a battle with Taliban on the outskirts of Kandahar city.

No regular troops have returned to set up outposts in the area. In the meantime, the Taliban are believed to have gained stronger influence in the district, and the local inhabitants seem to have grown deeply skeptical about the government. When the provincial police chief stood in front of the assembled elders and declared they should support the "free and independent Muslim government," there was an uneasy rustling in the crowd, as people coughed and spit, and several men sitting near the front murmured, "No, no, no."

After the police chief's speech, Col. Juneau took the microphone and tried to explain why the district hasn't seen many troops for the past two years.

"The province of Kandahar is very big," the deputy commander of all Canadian forces in Afghanistan said. "We cannot provide security over the whole province at once."

I am certain, that if the entire interview transcript were made available, with the context of the interview clearly evident, there would be a few less people stating the Maj Moffet misspoke, or took liberties.

It is also interesting to ponder how the press would colour the situation if the military did not permit embedded journalists or allow personal interviews, only providing pooled press sessions through authorized public affairs personnel....yup, that'd be popular, no doubt.  I'm sure the press wouldn't complain about that.  : 

Something some folks might want to consider...


G2G

 

[The Bread Guy]

PARAPHRASE (in fact qualified by Maj Moffet as personal opinion, not government policy - at least Mr. Smith had the decency to note Moffat's qualification)

True, but buried in paragraph #28 of 36 - more MSM peskiness.

Also, the latest from DND, "reminding" us that it was, indeed, his opinon alone:

"Statement
Statement on the number of troops needed in Kandahar Province

February 23, 2008

Today, Colonel Christian Juneau, Acting Commander of Joint Task Force Afghanistan issued the following statement on the number of troops needed in Kandahar Province:

The views expressed to the Globe & Mail by a member of Joint Task Force Afghanistan concerning the need for a specified number of NATO soldiers were a personal opinion which do not represent the views of the Canadian Forces.

The Canadian Forces stand behind the Government's endorsement of the findings of the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan."

 

[54/102 CEF]

a miscue on my part....

 

[54/102 CEF]

Unless your credentials should read R831, I would think that you would be quite familiar with these regulations.

Not sure your quality control is where it should be mon ami.

 

[a_majoor]

This question is the wrong one in my opinion. You could have one million soldiers on the ground and find something for the million and first soldier to do.

The real questions in my mind should be how efficiently are we using the soldiers who are on the ground? Our battle-group seems to be a shining example of efficient use of manpower (despite grumbling over the size of the "tail" in KAF), while vast numbers of troops from other nations are out of play due to national caveats.

Do we really need 1000 extra troops from NATO? Why not the Polish Battlegroup? They belong to the Partnership for Peace, but are well trained, well equipped and have already offered us the use of two helicopters. Why not the US Marines? They are technically NATO troops, and pack a ferocious punch. Why not the five battalions of ANA who will be on the ground, who certainly have no caveats (although they lack the higher end organization and equipment that make Western armies so effective).

 

[PPCLI Guy]

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.

You will find that generally, this is the case.

FWIW, I do not see you as trolling at all - rather you are espousing your point of view in a dignified and calm manner.

 

[sgf]

Thank you, I didnt think I was trolling either