Afghanistan: Why we should be there (or not), how to conduct the mission (or not) & when to leave

[GAP]

Report paints grim picture of Afghanistan
Updated Thu. Jun. 14 2007 9:13 AM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

The situation in Afghanistan last fall was steadily deteriorating, with deep fractures developing in the south and west and the position of President Hamid Karzai shakier than ever before, according to a report prepared for top levels of the Canadian government.

The document that analyzed the situation in Afghanistan was prepared by the International Assessment Staff of the Privy Council Office.

The document, with large portions blacked out, was obtained by The Globe and Mail through an Access to Information request.

The report was apparently put together last November after Canadian NATO troops stationed in Kandahar went through several particularly violent months.

It states that the effectiveness of Taliban suicide attacks and roadside bombs in southern Afghanistan had brought the insurgents increased financial support and boosted "recruitment, training, equipping and morale improvements" of the Taliban. Pakistan, the Gulf states and "Jihad-minded groups and individuals" then began lending new support to the then-faltering insurgency.

However, the otherwise chilling report also said that the Taliban lacks widespread support in regions other than the south, where the insurgency is strongest.

The grim reality of the situation is that "two Afghanistans" have effectively been created, with the north and west making measurable progress while little advancement is taking place in the south and the west, The Globe reports.

The government, and Karzai himself, face questions of legitimacy due to constant challenges to the nation's leadership that continually erode the leadership, the report states.

The report referred to "mixed success" in terms of efforts to reform the Afghan justice system and described "a culture of immunity among major warlords, criminals, drug lords and political figures."

The report also says Afghanistan's security forces are "weak and under-developed."
More on link

 

[Blue Max]

We need to have patience, for our efforts to turn around this backward nation, to succeed.
Unfortunately this goes against the present culture of fuzzy PC, right now, immediately gratify me. :

Keep up the good work,
cheers.

BM

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Imagine if the Second World War had happened in this day and age rather than 65 years ago or so. The present day Liberals would have pulled the Canadians out of England after the Dieppe Raid citing that we were spending too much money and wasting too mnay Canadian lives....."why do we want to go into Europe and meddle in those peoples lives anyway?" after we leave the Nazis and their ilk will be back...let's take an opinion poll and see how many people really support this foreign war...blah blah blah

 

[Reccesoldier]

Report paints grim picture of Afghanistan
Updated Thu. Jun. 14 2007 9:13 AM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

The situation in Afghanistan last fall was steadily deteriorating, with deep fractures developing in the south and west and the position of President Hamid Karzai shakier than ever before, according to a report prepared for top levels of the Canadian government.

The document that analyzed the situation in Afghanistan was prepared by the International Assessment Staff of the Privy Council Office.

The document, with large portions blacked out, was obtained by The Globe and Mail through an Access to Information request.

The report was apparently put together last November after Canadian NATO troops stationed in Kandahar went through several particularly violent months.

It states that the effectiveness of Taliban suicide attacks and roadside bombs in southern Afghanistan had brought the insurgents increased financial support and boosted "recruitment, training, equipping and morale improvements" of the Taliban. Pakistan, the Gulf states and "Jihad-minded groups and individuals" then began lending new support to the then-faltering insurgency.

However, the otherwise chilling report also said that the Taliban lacks widespread support in regions other than the south, where the insurgency is strongest.

The grim reality of the situation is that "two Afghanistans" have effectively been created, with the north and west making measurable progress while little advancement is taking place in the south and the west, The Globe reports.

The government, and Karzai himself, face questions of legitimacy due to constant challenges to the nation's leadership that continually erode the leadership, the report states.

The report referred to "mixed success" in terms of efforts to reform the Afghan justice system and described "a culture of immunity among major warlords, criminals, drug lords and political figures."

The report also says Afghanistan's security forces are "weak and under-developed."
More on link

I can almost here them now...  "this should have been over months ago! How long does democratization take anyway?  Sheesh!" Idiots.

 

[observor 69]

Imagine if the Second World War had happened in this day and age rather than 65 years ago or so. The present day Liberals would have pulled the Canadians out of England after the Dieppe Raid citing that we were spending too much money and wasting too mnay Canadian lives....."why do we want to go into Europe and meddle in those peoples lives anyway?" after we leave the Nazis and their ilk will be back...let's take an opinion poll and see how many people really support this foreign war...blah blah blah

Bit of a  stretch using the old historical "what if" to compare today to the factors bearing on Canada in 1939.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Bit of a  stretch using the old historical "what if" to compare today to the factors bearing on Canada in 1939.

I don't think it was a comparison between the conflicts.  I think IN HOC was saying that back then people had their priorities straight and had spiritual and personal fortitude to do what needed to be done.  When was the last time you heard someone say "For God, Queen and Country"?  These days it's just "For me, whatever is convenient and whatever seems like a good idea at the time".  We are a nation of sheeple that act like over-entitled navel gazers.  Yet we still like to fancy ourselves morally superior to the United States. 
I don't get it.  Afghanistan should be a huge point of pride for all of Canada, but because a few political opportunists manipulated it into something negative we have discussions like this.  I can't even imagine how many of our veterans are disgusted with the state of things. 

 

[stealthylizard]

I think this war has done great things for recruitment numbers, or has it been something else contributing the increased interest in the Canadian Forces?  I might be completely wrong of course.

 

[a_majoor]

I would say that the only way to "win" is to stay for a generation.

Afghanistan's greatest shortage is skilled and educated people. Individuals are smart, brave etc. but really only able to work at an individual or "small unit" level. What we need are more professionals, managers, technical specialists, officers and NCO's who can work at higher levels. Once we get a critical mass of these people (and a larger mass of literate people to sustain the process) then Afghanistan will be self sustaining. This won't happen between now and 2009, 2011 and probably only start ramping up towards critical mass by 2017.

Of course the question is "how do we get these people", and the answer is to do what we are doing (concentrate on security so the Taliban have limited ability to burn schools and attack educated people), and maybe throw in some refinements (educational scholarships to Canadian schools, colleges and universities, perhaps?).

Of course we also need a critical mass of Canadians to know and understand this truth as well........

 

[observor 69]

I don't think it was a comparison between the conflicts.  I think IN HOC was saying that back then people had their priorities straight and had spiritual and personal fortitude to do what needed to be done.  When was the last time you heard someone say "For God, Queen and Country"?  These days it's just "For me, whatever is convenient and whatever seems like a good idea at the time".  We are a nation of sheeple that act like over-entitled navel gazers.  Yet we still like to fancy ourselves morally superior to the United States. 
I don't get it.  Afghanistan should be a huge point of pride for all of Canada, but because a few political opportunists manipulated it into something negative we have discussions like this.  I can't even imagine how many of our veterans are disgusted with the state of things. 

Just a couple of points.
Political opportunists exist on both sides of the aisle.
Harper and his cabinet have done an abysmal job of selling this mission.
The present generation of Canadians have no experience with war. Couple that with the poor job of explaning why we are there and you get  the present negative public support for the mission.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Just a couple of points.
Political opportunists exist on both sides of the aisle.
Harper and his cabinet have done an abysmal job of selling this mission.
The present generation of Canadians have no experience with war. Couple that with the poor job of explaning why we are there and you get  the present negative public support for the mission.

Agreed, what we need is some good old-fashioned 1950's style propaganda.  Flood the airwaves with it, make g-d vignettes of pre and post Taliban Afghanistan.  Posters, TV Documentaries with a directed propagandist approach.

It's not the war in Afghanistan we are loosing it's the more important war at home. 

I for one don't want to be sitting in my kitchen in 10 years, after a new government has pulled pole before the job was done watching CBC and hearing some left wing nutbar complaining about Afghan tyranny, human rights abuses, rampant poverty, state sponsored terrorism, womens rights violations etc, etc, etc. and bemoaning the fact that "the western world" is/has/will ignore Afghanistan because it has no oil/no strategic importance/ is a lost cause...

The vicious circle of the left...  First the story is that we should pull out because we are killing people, then when we do they cry that we should have stayed because people are being killed by whatever tyrant we "abandoned" them to.  :

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

I don't think it was a comparison between the conflicts.  I think IN HOC was saying that back then people had their priorities straight and had spiritual and personal fortitude to do what needed to be done.  When was the last time you heard someone say "For God, Queen and Country"?  These days it's just "For me, whatever is convenient and whatever seems like a good idea at the time".  We are a nation of sheeple that act like over-entitled navel gazers.  Yet we still like to fancy ourselves morally superior to the United States. 
I don't get it.  Afghanistan should be a huge point of pride for all of Canada, but because a few political opportunists manipulated it into something negative we have discussions like this.  I can't even imagine how many of our veterans are disgusted with the state of things. 

thanks ZC you captured the spirit of my point.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Just a couple of points.
Political opportunists exist on both sides of the aisle.
Harper and his cabinet have done an abysmal job of selling this mission.
The present generation of Canadians have no experience with war. Couple that with the poor job of explaning why we are there and you get  the present negative public support for the mission.

I guess.  But it goes back to the original point.  Doing the right thing shouldn't need a sustained media campaign.  There was a time when helping the down trodden was a good enough reason. 
And when the media has been so biased against Mr. Harper's efforts, who is to say that an effort isn't being made to get it out there.  The information is abundantly available.  Every single person I talk to supports the mission.  No small thing considering what a left wing enclave we have here in Windsor. 
Every time one of these polls comes up, we all say the same thing:  the stats are skewed and cannot be trusted unless the actual questions and interview pool is revealed.  The media would know this as well, but they still choose to pluck out-of-context factoids and then create big splash headlines.  It's blatant partisanship.  Which is fine, if some bunch of clowns want to be the forever nay sayers.  But I have yet to hear a viable alternative plan (such a common theme of the left) and some good reason to abandon the people of Afghanistan. 

IN HOC, any time.  ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced from today’s globe and mail.com ‘web exclusive comment' section, under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is an interesting piece by two US researchers:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070617.wcomment0618/BNStory/International/home

Web-exclusive comment
There's grounds for hope in Afghanistan

CRAIG CHARNEY AND ISOBEL COLEMAN
Special to Globe and Mail Update
June 18, 2007 at 12:58 AM EDT

As the Taliban and NATO spring offensives grind on, many people's perceptions of Afghanistan are pessimistic. Some say our Western efforts have changed nothing, so we will fail: The ongoing abuses against women, corruption, and warlordism are opening the door to the Taliban. Others say unless we change nothing, we will fail: Steps towards gender equality and democracy are disturbing a male-dominated, ultra-conservative society and reviving Taliban support.

These perspectives miss the real grounds for hope in Afghanistan: Afghans themselves are changing their society, with Afghan women playing a leading role. Despite the Taliban's military revival, Afghan women have won broad support for their rights to study, work, and vote, largely gained since the Taliban's 2001 ouster, and overwhelmingly reject their former oppressors. But, at the same time, Afghans are struggling to reconcile many of their Islamic traditions with the modern world, as the case of women also shows.

The stereotype of a tribal society resistant to all change does injustice to most Afghans, who want a society very different from that which the Taliban imposed. But applying unrealistic yardsticks to Afghanistan leaves us unable to see important changes taking place there. If we are to respect the Afghans' reform consensus, we must support the incremental progress under way and accept their limits to change.

Surprising as it may seem, grassroots support for women's rights — the antithesis of Taliban policy — is widespread in Afghanistan today. An ABC News survey of 1,036 Afghans last October found that 80 per cent accept women as members of parliament; 70 per cent of both sexes agree women should be able to work outside their home; and 88 per cent of the population supports education for girls. This is a sea-change from 20 years ago, when sending girls to Soviet-run schools generated widespread resistance. Indeed, opposition to girls' education under the Soviet occupation was a rallying cry of the mujahadeen. Now, polls show that Afghans see lack of education as Afghan women's biggest problem and the rights to work and study as women's most important gains since the Taliban's fall. Nor are women's rights merely theoretical: 43 per cent of Afghan girls are in school now and one woman in seven has a job — while under the Taliban, females had little place in school or the workplace. Some 60 per cent of women also voted in the 2004 presidential election, and women won 26 per cent of parliamentary seats in 2005.

Afghans themselves are well aware of the changes: Four-fifths say women's rights have improved since the Taliban fell, which is a major reason why a majority still says the country is headed in the right direction. In fact, when they are asked what democracy will bring them personally, women's rights is a leading response.

Support for women's rights is an important part of Afghanistan's struggle to define its own democracy. It is also a powerful barrier to the return of the Taliban. Support for Taliban fighters, while limited among men, is almost non-existent among Afghan women, the ABC survey found. This should be no surprise. It is hard to imagine that Afghanistan's women, who have the most to lose, would welcome a Taliban comeback. Indeed, as the military threat of the Taliban increased last year, polling found the group experiencing the greatest loss of confidence was young, urban women — those who had made the greatest gains from their new freedom. While Taliban violence, often targeting women and girls, is spreading fear, it is not winning converts. After attacks on 400 schools and 40 teachers in the past year, there are some districts where Taliban intimidation has virtually shut down girls' education. But 96 per cent of Afghans say that attacks against teachers and schools are wrong.

Make no mistake: Afghanistan is still a very conservative society where tribal traditions, puritanical Islam, and gender inequalities run deep. Some 55 per cent of Afghans say a woman should wear a burka; half still won't accept a woman singing on television; 60 per cent of men and women endorse arranged marriages; 60 per cent say women should not supervise male employees.

Forced marriages, male domination, and domestic violence are deeply-rooted problems, unlikely to be solved soon. Yet Afghans — men and women alike — spelled out what they want in the ABC poll: development and security. Their priorities are jobs, schools, electricity, roads, and health care. Asked about the presence of American, British, and Canadian troops, more than 70 per cent expressed gratitude for all of them. They do not want foreign economic or military aid scaled back; indeed, their goals cannot be met without more support from abroad.

In policy terms, this means that, however tempting, abandoning our social, economic, and military engagement with the Afghans would run against their wishes and our interests. But we must also understand that they, not we, are setting the pace of change. It is a mistake to expect them soon to meet the Western standards applied by some well-intentioned foreigners. We must be prepared, long term, to sustain efforts to help Afghans meet basic needs and defend themselves as they shape a society in their own image.

Of course, if we persevere, success in Afghanistan is likely to be partial at best. It will look less like paradise than like Pakistan: a violent, underdeveloped Pashtun tribal belt in the South and East, and corruption-plagued semi-normality elsewhere. Yet such a state would be many Afghans' dream — while a Taliban comeback is their nightmare, as well as ours.

For our part, even as we must be realistic in our aims and humble about our role in Afghanistan, we should show no less commitment to its future than the country's own women and men have. When an American TV producer recently visited a girls' school the Taliban had burned down three times, he found their mothers and fathers rebuilding the school for a fourth time. There's a lesson for us.

Craig Charney is president of Charney Research, the polling firm that conducted the ABC News survey. Isobel Coleman, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, directs its Women and Foreign Policy program.

I think the last three paragraphs are key.

Ruxted dealt with the part of the The Afghanistan Compact which set a timetable the Afghans must meet while leaving ISAF members and the UN free of any such burdens.  As Charney and Coleman point out, the Afghans are making a Herculean effort to meet their commitments – but it’s an uphill battle against ruthless and determined enemies.

We are not going to turn Afghanistan into a liberal democracy – not within the lifetime of mostArmy.ca members, anyway.  Afghanistan is a weak, backward, conservative society – best suited to coexisting with its neighbours in the 18th century.  Democracy, especially liberal democracy does not propagate easily.  The ‘soil’ needs to be carefully prepared before the seeds of a liberal democracy will take root.  Where, beyond the Anglosphere and North-West Europe, democracy has spread it is, generally, illiberal democracy.  (There is a third way – what I describe as conservative democracy which has developed in East Asia (most notably in Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan) – it might also be described as Confucian democracy because it places the values of the society (not any and all societies) above the values and natutal rights of the individual.)  Afghanistan will not become a conservative democracy any time soon, either – like almost all societies stretching from Morocco across North Africa, through the Middle East and into West and Central Asia it is not, in the least, Confucian – its conservatism is grounded in pre-Islamic, medieval tribal cultures.  It is culture, not religion, which condemns most Muslims to lives of ignorance, violence and despair.

The Afghan people have, indeed, set an example for us: they are persevering; they are sacrificing; they have held out their hands – begging for our help.  Stephane Dion and Jack Layton and their fellow travellers want Canada to turn its back – to make a mockery of Pink Lloyd Axworthy’s quest to enshrine ‘Responsibility to Protect’ because responsibility implies effort, perhaps a diversion of a tiny percentage of the GDP away from ‘free’ healthcare  and the pogey and towards those less fortunate than ourselves.  I think Dion and Layton have the active support of the majority of our fellow citizens.  I believe we, Canadians, are a mean- spirited, niggardly and timorous people - best suited to hewing wood and hauling water for the USA.  The Afghans have set an example we will find too hard to follow.

 

[MarkOttawa]

E.R. Campbell: +10.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

Pretty tough Edward.  Add a few pluses from here.

 

[Flip]

Thanks Edward!

For our part, even as we must be realistic in our aims and humble about our role in Afghanistan, we should show no less commitment to its future than the country's own women and men have. When an American TV producer recently visited a girls' school the Taliban had burned down three times, he found their mothers and fathers rebuilding the school for a fourth time. There's a lesson for us.

Excellent conclusion to an excellent article.

It is culture, not religion, which condemns most Muslims to lives of ignorance, violence and despair.

+ 10 here - exactly right!

The bronze age culture is what leads to all of this conflict.
I've always thought Al Qaeda and the Taliban were a departure from Islam.
They need to shown as such.

Conversely, hearing "Give Me That Old Time Religion" in my own
church, makes my skin crawl.

If everyone would please refer to their calendar and find today's YEAR
we might get to the same page and sing a similar tune.  ;D

 

[Yrys]

Canada should debate extending Afghan mission

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070618/cda_afghanistan_070619/20070618?hub=SEAfghanistan

OTTAWA -- The House of Commons defence committee says the conflict in Afghanistan will likely go on well past 2009
and Parliament should hold a debate halfway through next year to decide whether to extend Canada's mission in the war-torn country.
The all-party committee's long-awaited reported was tabled on Monday. "If we leave, someone else will have to carry the load,"
it said. A recent poll found a majority of Canadians wanted to see the army's combat mission end on schedule in February 2009.

The survey by Decima Research, released to The Canadian Press on June 12, found two-thirds of those polled said they would
not support an extension. Only 26 per cent said the military mission should be extended "if that is necessary to complete our goals there."

The Commons committee study, which has been months in the making, said the army's role in fighting the Taliban-led insurgency
in the southern region of Afghanistan is largely misunderstood by the Canadian public. "Critics of the mission have said it is
unbalanced and that more diplomatic and development effort is required - and less combat operations," said the committee's report.
"Nearly everyone we met, including military commanders, said more development was needed, but they pointed out that until
an adequate degree of security existed, development aid could not flow to the degree desired."

Both the New Democrats and Liberals have made the argument that the existing mission in Kandahar, which began in February
2006, was more about war-fighting than nation-building. Both the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democrats wrote dissenting reports,
with the NDP arguing for an immediate withdrawl of troops from combat operations.

Development aid was slow in arriving following last fall's major Canadian-led offensive - dubbed Operation Medusa - but the
committee's report suggested that the Canadian International Development Agency now has a better handle on the situation.

The recent scandal over the alleged abuse of Taliban prisoners captured by Canadians but turned over to Afghan authorities
has also further tarnished the views of people back home, the 174 page report concluded.

The committee held hearings in Ottawa, visited military bases in Canada and made a high-profile trip to Kandahar in January.
However, the Members of Parliament were not allowed to venture outside of the heavily fortified airfield that NATO uses as
its main base in southern Afghanistan. The committee received most of its briefings from Canadian military and development
officials without visiting aid projects - or even speaking to local Afghan officials.

The report noted Afghan "displeasure" with the rising number of civilian deaths, but said that many of the unfortunate cases
involved air strikes and that Canada had no combat planes operating in theatre. As many as 2,400 people, most of them
insurgents, have died this year in fighting. A recent Human Rights Watch report said NATO and U.S. military operations
killed at least 230 civilians in 2006, but most of the 900 civilian combat fatalities last year were from insurgent attacks.

There has been a lot of critcism and friction over the reluctance of some NATO allies - most notably Germany, Italy and
France - to allow their troops in Afghanistan to join the U.S., Canada, Britain and the Netherlands in combat operations in the south.
"We end on a note of humility, acknowledging that many of our close and traditional allies are indeed sharing the burden of
combat," the report said. "Many of them have lost national blood and treasure as Canada has. While we might encourage
others to do more, there is no more effective way to bring others along than to continue to play a meaningful role ourselves."

 

[MarkOttawa]

Here's how the Globe leads its story on the committee's report:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070619.wafghancomm19/BNStory/Front

Afghan mission tarnished by detainee abuse, committee reports

Canada's effort in Afghanistan has been marred by the controversy involving the handover of Afghan detainees and deaths of civilians, the House of Commons defence committee says in a long-awaited report.

The committee, which issued the report Monday, also called for a debate to take place one year from now to decide whether Ottawa should extend the mission that has already cost the lives of 58 Canadians. The report also says that the army's role is not well understood by the general voting public.

MPs concluded that three separate issues, taken together, have tarnished what has been a largely successful mission.

“[The] issues have conspired to take a touch of the gloss off the military record,” the report says.

The first is the large number of investigations of unproven allegations examining the treatment of Afghan detainees.

The second notes a “degree of associated concern” over the quality of the arrangement between the Canadian Forces and the Afghan army that governed the details of the transfers.

“Third, there have been a small number of incidents in which innocent Afghan civilians have been killed during fighting between ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] and Taliban forces. Most of these unfortunate occurrences have come from air strikes.”

The report goes on to say that, although Canada has no combat aircraft in the country, Afghan citizens fail to discriminate between foreign troops after an attack...

Compare with the Ottawa Citizen's lead:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=dd37b4dc-e900-4a8a-bd0d-315092ece9fc

Hold debate to extend Afghan mission beyond 2009: MPs panel
Canadians need 'up-to-date understanding' of the commitment

Parliament should immediately debate whether the Canadian Forces commitment to Afghanistan should be extended beyond February 2009, says a Commons defence committee study released yesterday.

The all-party committee also said more needs to be done to ensure aid and reconstruction dollars are delivered in a more timely manner to Afghans, especially after some particularly heavy fighting last year.

"None of the witnesses who appeared before the committee expected the military problem in Afghanistan to be solved by February 2009," states the report, the result of a 13-month study of a controversial mission that has divided Canadians and claimed the lives of 57 soldiers and one diplomat.

"Some spoke of decades, some spoke of generations, but all spoke of a long-term commitment. This raises the question of whether the mission mandate ought to be extended or not."..

Did the reporters read the same thing or does the Globe have, perhaps, an agenda?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

I notice that our ‘friends’ at the Rideau Institute’s ceasefire.ca (Steve Staples, Prop.) have an on-line  ‘write-in’ campaign to demand the resignations of O’Connor and Hillier because of the Afghan detainee issue.

I’m not smart enough to organize anything quite so slick but it occurs to me that those of us who agree with (some? most of?) Ruxted’s commentaries can follow suit.

We could write to the PM, the MND, the Foreign Minister and our own, individual constituency MP (no matter which party) and say something like:

Nearly two years ago a rather loose group of people with considerable knowledge and experience in military matters and an abiding interest in national security, defence and foreign policy matters formed an on-line commentary group known as The Ruxted Group.  Its commentaries can be found at: http://ruxted.ca/

Ruxted aims, primarily, to correct incorrect information or disinformation in the media and to propose changes to Canadian policies.

I endorse Ruxted’s  main thrust – for a foreign policy which asserts a leadership role for Canada and for the efficient and effective armed forces necessary to give weight to our words,  and I encourage you to take a while to read and consider their ideas.  Perhaps you can endorse some of them too

You could send something like that to your local MP, whose E-mail address you can find here (click on the name hyperlink and then on ‘Contact Information’) and to:

Prime Minister Harper at Harper.S@parl.gc.ca

Defence Minister O’Connor at: OConnor.G@parl.gc.ca

Foreign Minister MacKay at: Mackay.P@parl.gc.ca

Liberal Leader Dion at: Dion.S@parl.gc.ca

NDP Leader Layton at: Layton.J@parl.gc.ca

 

[McG]

Countering Afghanistan’s Insurgency: No Quick Fixes
November 2006 report