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

[Old Sweat]

I have hear beer fuelled rumours to the effect that some planners want a two mission profile:

1.  Haiti – assigned, primarily, to 5th and 34th brigades; and

2.  Afghanistan – assigned to almost everyone else.

That is just a dumb enough idea to fly. Before I get into a rough staff check on its feasibility, remember that the CDS has just stated that we can maintain a 2500 person commitment post-09 in Afghanistan. Implied in that is (a) with our existing force structure, and (b) without taking on another major deployment. Or at least, that is how I understand it.

Let's say we take on Haiti with 5 and 34 Bdes providing the manpower. We are probably talking a battle group of three subunits of two rifle/mech coys and a lt armd sqn, perhaps a tac hel flight, some UAVs, and the HQ/NSE organization. Heck, let's toss in a PRT with its own security element. This seems to me to take us back to the six months in theatre and twelve months at home cycle.

This will also have a ripple effect on Afghanistan by decreasing the mean time between tours for the rest of the army, I wonder in particular if we can support two separate operations medically. To my tiny mind, reducing the Afghanistan contingent does not reduce the support requirement proportionally. Maybe it even makes the challenges more difficult.

Now toss another disaster calling for DART or another flood or ice storm, or, heaven forbid, a large scale internal security crisis into the equation, and we are getting close to running a personnel deficit.

I'm not trying to be a pessimists, but my old J3 Plans experience at contingency planning kicked in, and I don't like what I see. Perhaps somebody smarter and more current than I can come up with a way for it to work. If so, please do.

 

[armyvern]

I have hear beer fuelled rumours to the effect that some planners want a two mission profile:

I can tell they're beer fuelled!! Were you?? 

Scary rumors to read none the less.  :-\

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Old Sweat-

Let us not forget the support bill for the 2010 Olympics, too.  I don't see how two separate missions like Haiti and Afghanistan can be maintained post-2009, without doing something fancy like signing an Order-In-Council bringing a bunch of Militia Regiments into a Special Force.  Even then- that does not solve the problems with key enablers like airlift and medical staff...

As an aside- Michael Byers was interviewed on CBC Radio 1 this morning (he is hawking his new book).  His thesis seems to be:

Canada's foreign policy should be based upon doing whatever the Americans are not doing.

He also advocated us pulling out of Afghanistan (because the Americans are there and the Mujhahadeen will beat us <his words>) and invading Sudan (he didn't say "invade", but that was what it would be- an invasion).  He said that in his analysis, it would be a push over- apparently the opposition there is only "on camels and armed with .303 rifles". (his exact words)  :

I'm frequently astounded by academic types who, having never spent a day in uniform, claim to know our job better than us and can't do something basic like open an atlas (the problem in Darfur comes into stark focus, even if you do nothing else).

 

[Old Sweat]

SKT,

Agreed, Let's put the idea in the beer-fueled bin and concentrate on Afghanistan.

I didn't hear Prof Byers, thank goodness, but if he thinks invading the Sudan is just a case of bashing the Camel Corps, good luck to him. His two main points are self-defeating, as not very many militaries in the world can do anything useful in a place like that without American support.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Old Sweat-

Let us not forget the support bill for the 2010 Olympics, too.  I don't see how two separate missions like Haiti and Afghanistan can be maintained post-2009, without doing something fancy like signing an Order-In-Council bringing a bunch of Militia Regiments into a Special Force.  Even then- that does not solve the problems with key enablers like airlift and medical staff...

As an aside- Michael Byers was interviewed on CBC Radio 1 this morning (he is hawking his new book).  His thesis seems to be:

Canada's foreign policy should be based upon doing whatever the Americans are not doing.

He also advocated us pulling out of Afghanistan (because the Americans are there and the Mujhahadeen will beat us <his words>) and invading Sudan (he didn't say "invade", but that was what it would be- an invasion).  He said that in his analysis, it would be a push over- apparently the opposition there is only "on camels and armed with .303 rifles". (his exact words)  :

I'm frequently astounded by academic types who, having never spent a day in uniform, claim to know our job better than us and can't do something basic like open an atlas (the problem in Darfur comes into stark focus, even if you do nothing else).

I heard the same interview.  Byers is an 'expert' on the law of war - that's why I'm not overly surprised at his dismay with e.g. Alberto Gonzales who, as White House Counsel, declared that the Geneva Conventions were quaint and, therefore, not to be followed too closely.

But Byers, like that other law professor, Trudeau, is a bit of a one-note-wonder.  He wants - doubtlessly very sincerely - the UN to work and he wants Canada to lead, within the UN.  He has to force every situation to fit his one big idea (remember Isaiah Berlin's fox vs hedgehog analogy?) and sometimes he has to bend logic and truth to make the fit.

 

[Flip]

It's pretty clear to me that we (civlian) Canadians are having quite enough
trouble grasping the mission we have in Afghanistan.

Adding Haiti or Sudan adds mud to the water and frankly, I
don't see either being in our direct national interest.

R2P is a Canadian "Value", but there is precious little capacity to go around.

Gwynne Dyer and his aweful isolationism.  Look how well that worked out for us on 9/11, for the USS Cole, for the embassies in Africa..
the list goes on

Isolationism? - No, defeatism (I think).

Call the enemy by it's name ( Radical Islamism ) and deal with that.......
Once nut jobs like the Taliban and AQ start to control or threaten chunks
of the middle east the west won't be able to protect anybody.

Darfur is a victim of the same enemy..........enemy of decency I might add.
but beyond the wests collective grasp as long as China and Russia
oppose what the west does just on principal.

If R2P isn't enough in Afghanistan - It sure as hell won't be enough
in Haiti or Darfur.

Just my few meandering thoughts.........

 

[SeaKingTacco]

(remember Isaiah Berlin's fox vs hedgehog analogy?)

I had to go to Google for that one, Edward! 

 

[Old Sweat]

We are, Edward, also stuck in a morass of O'Connor's making - the CPC defence policy of the last election which he authored. [The last gem came from a member of his campaign team.] That policy, widely called "Canada First," had regional assistance battalions, an airborne battalion at Trenton and a training centre/troops and icebreakers for the north. Leaving aside the airborne battalion, which is an emotional issue for many of us and is being discussed elsewhere, there is a (very) little merit in the regional assistance battalions, perhaps a bit more in the ice breakers and none at all in stationing southerners in the High Arctic.

Repeat after me - there is no military threat to the Canadian north. Now, write it in your notebook. There is a requirement for SAR, for environmental monitoring and cleanup purposes and for somebody to show the flag. There is no need for a land force unit to stand on guard there.

Hopefully that is being recognized by the great men and women who are drafting the statement. I hope that his grand scheme is not at the root of the difficulties in gaining support in the PCO.

 

[observor 69]

The White House Situation Room is a 5,000 square foot conference and intelligence management center in the basement of the West Wing of the White House. It is run by the National Security Council staff for the use of the President of the United States and his advisors (including Homeland Security and the White House chief of staff) to monitor and deal with crises at home and abroad and to conduct secure communications with outside (often overseas) persons. The Situation Room is equipped with secure, advanced communications equipment for the President to maintain command and control of U.S. forces around the world. It should not be confused with the Presidential Emergency Operations Center which is situated under the East Wing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Situation_Room

 

[MarkOttawa]

Why we quit: sixty CF members have been killed, it's a long slog, the Karzai government isn't great, Canadians don't like this kind of combat stuff, we're involved in a civil war, blah, blah, blah...Scott Taylor and a columnist in the Victoria Times Colonist give typical summaries of the "give up" position.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Columnists/844966.html
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=15aca9e3-4b83-4b2a-9f0f-82e80b567d48

The wrong stuff, indeed.  Visceral pacifism I would say.

Some "context": in the first sixth months of 2007 191 people were killed on highways patrolled by the Ontario Provincial Police--that does not include deaths on roadways patrolled by municipal forces or the RCMP (or, presumably, Native police forces).
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20070701/highway_crashes_070701/20070701?hub=TorontoHome

Mark
Ottawa

 

[armyvern]

I agree MarkO,

Heck even my 12 year old daughter has made a comment pretty much as I have it below while watching the news of the latest fallen ...

"Mom, I know it's not nice that soldiers are dying but in World War Two more than that would die in a single day. Were they that mad at the government then too? I'm glad the government didn't listen to the adults way back then."

I'm proud of her. A 12 year old who actually gets it. The sad reality is that it's the cause that should be important, not the numbers. Funny thing is by her comment "were they that mad at the government then too" she was referring to the news commentators...even she can pick up their bias.

 

[MarkOttawa]

ArmyVern: A child (daughter to make the point) with brains and heart.  Who also knows some history.  You as parents are lucky, as is your daughter, compared with the abyss of ignorance and attitude that envelops our country.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[zipperhead_cop]

compared with the abyss of ignorance and attitude that envelops our country.

I frequently wonder about that.  I have yet to come across someone who is vocally against our mission to Afghanistan.  It would be nice to see come election time all these polls that have been doctored up and skewed with regards to peoples support come back and bite the opposition in the arse.  The shameless politicizing of this mission has been truly disgusting, and borders on the criminal. 

From the Criminal Code:

Offences in relation to military forces
62. (1) Every one who wilfully

(a) interferes with, impairs or influences the loyalty or discipline of a member of a force,

(b) publishes, edits, issues, circulates or distributes a writing that advises, counsels or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force, or

(c) advises, counsels, urges or in any manner causes insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force,

is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

I would really love to know why it is that these media types are allowed to blather on ad infinatum in moral breaking and enemy bolstering ways, without being brought to task for it. 

 

[JLeclerc]

zipperhead_cop: Ahh the wonderful freedom of the press...so much bantering so little to say.

I Have yet to meet anyone as well who openly defies our mission in Afghanistan, except a few slurs about the military itself coming from unrealistic pacifists, which needless to say doesn't upset me at all. What REALLY does upset me is the lack of support (I'm sure you have read this before but it's really the biggest killer here...) to the troops themselves, by the people and the media and the opposing political parties to the current government. I will not fall into a political debate, but as I say to those people I meet,  SUPPORT THE TROOPS It really doesn't matter if you like or voted for the government etc etc...we are there right now, we need your support for all the man and women of the forces right now! They want to know their country and loved ones are with them in heart at least.

 

[Flip]

I would really love to know why it is that these media types are allowed to blather on ad infinatum in moral breaking and enemy bolstering ways, without being brought to task for it.

I've been wondering the same thing............

Our society has changed.

Multiculturalism (a good thing)  is one aspect of the change.
Many Canadians adopt a "we are the world" attitude and chuck
nationalism out the window.  Our own political parties pander
to special interests (ethnic and social) at the expense of
Canadian NATIONAL INTEREST.  Media have become
the de-facto opposition and gate keepers of the truth.

 
At least Americans know who they are.

Canadians by and large, don't.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Flip: But we're proudly united by our juvenile anti-Americanism !

Happy Independence Day,

Mark
Ottawa

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I've been wondering the same thing............

Our society has changed.

Multiculturalism (a good thing)  is one aspect of the change.
Many Canadians adopt a "we are the world" attitude and chuck
nationalism out the window.  Our own political parties pander
to special interests (ethnic and social) at the expense of
Canadian NATIONAL INTEREST.  Media have become
the de-facto opposition and gate keepers of the truth.

   
At least Americans know who they are.

Canadians by and large, don't.

So where is the "multiculturalism is a good thing" part of the rest of your post.  Or were you also missing the presence of the [sarcasm] smiley? 

 

[Flip]

I should have expanded my thought, I guess.

I think multiculturalism is a good thing as opposed to
ethnic nationalism.

In Canada we have expanded the basis of that idea into
antipathy toward all things anglo including our own traditions
to a degree, and substituted a misguided political correctness
that values foreign identity over Canadian identity.

Does that make any sense?  Both meanings apply.
1. Am I clear?
2. Is this such a hot idea?

What Canadian values are and what is Canada's national interest
needs to be spelled out.

Like I said, Americans seem to have no trouble with what it means
to be "American". Happy July 4 by the way......







   

 

[LakeSup]

With the latest cas fugres, we have overtaken the Brit cas count in Afgh and the press are questioning (and MGen McKenzie) why we are taking the brunt of the hard work there.  Maybe, if the other NATO countries (most) don't want to step up to the table, Canada's approach should be:  We'll stay there and do thetough job but, you must give us the money to do the job properly and safely.
ie, if they don't want to risk troops,give us part of your defence /rebuilding budget or equipment so that we can do the job, safely, for you.  This may even b beneficial for their (and our) defence industries as, as an engineer myself, I firmly believe that tchnology (and a lot of money) can defeat these bastards.  It just takes money and , I fear, THAT is the biggest heartache many Canadians have with the msn....they don't want to see our soldiers killed but, their bottom line is, they don't want their tax $ "wasted"/
OK, rant over.  NATO, start sendin your soldiers to stand beside us and rotate into the tough sectors, or send us your equipment and money and stay the hell out of our way.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Scott Taylor, one of the illuminated minds privileged to post at macleans.ca as one of the "Macleans 50", apparently believes the Taliban, or more generally the Pashtuns, are too pig-ignorant to specifically target Canadian forces.  His own words: "The very notion that they are calculating how best to splinter apart the alliance by targetting specific national contingents is absurd."

I disagree.  It is a comical and wholly unreasonable assumption that all the Taliban or all Pashtuns must be ignorant peasants and that there can be no shrewd, educated minds among their leadership.  To underestimate one's enemy is foolish.

Our 2009 decision point has been well-publicized, as have the policy stances of all parties: on the opposition benches an unambiguous desire to withdraw militarily at that time if not earlier, and on the government benches an unwillingness to continue combat operations without parliamentary and public support.  All the Taliban have to do is make sure none of the parties or the public in general changes its mind.  They don't have to risk resources in battle; they just have to keep chipping away at the body count in as cost-effective a manner as they can devise.  It has become abundantly clear that it is absolutely beyond the capability of the Taliban to militarily defeat coalition forces in Afghanistan.  It follows with near certainty that it is beyond the capability of the Taliban to defeat reconstructive forces in Afghanistan so long as the latter are protected by military forces.  And the bottom line is that reconstruction teams are a nice-to-have, not a necessity.  Wherever there is sufficient security in the world, people do their own reconstruction and get on with their own lives, no matter how austere their resources.  It is by this simple fact of life that security aid trumps developmental aid in an unsecure environment, every time.

If Canada drops out militarily, others will have to engage or increase their engagement.  For the Taliban, it is simply a matter of one brick at a time, subject only to the constraint of keeping the region as a whole politically unstable and the population uncommitted to throwing its whole weight behind the Afghan government and coalition forces.  We have basically painted a bullseye on the Canadian centre of gravity (ultimately the coalition CofG as a whole) and announced with fanfare, "Here it is".  We have given the Taliban an exact and manifestly clear reason to make killing Canadian soldiers a major goal, if not its main effort.  Those against the mission while claiming to not hold the troops responsible for our political and public leadership support the troops are now in concord with the Taliban's aims and responsible for promoting risk to our soldiers' lives.