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

[MarkOttawa]

Further to leroi:

Management Sciences for Health: Afghanistan:
http://www.msh.org/global-presence/asia/afghanistan.cfm

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post at The Torch:

President Obama and Afstan
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/president-obama-and-afstan.html

Predate: Another one:

CF at Kandahar: Repositioning--and reinforcing (temporarily)?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/cf-at-kandahar-repositioning-and.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Afstan and the Munich Security Conference--some nice posts by Paul Wells of Maclean's:

Verbatim: Peter MacKay on the future of Afghanistan [He quotes T.S. Eliot! That's our Peter!]
http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/02/09/verbatim-peter-mackay-on-the-future-of-afghanistan/

More from Munich: Gen. Petraeus’ no-spin zone
http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/02/09/more-from-munich-gen-petraeus-no-spin-zone/

More from Munich: Holbrooke in frustration
http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/02/10/more-from-munich-holbrooke-in-frustration/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[observor 69]

Paul Wells entertaining and informing as always, thanks for the link Mark.

 

[GAP]

If Obama asks us to stay in Afghanistan, can we refuse?
For years, Canada has been asking others to step up to the plate
L. IAN MACDONALD, The Gazette Published: Wednesday, February 11
Article Link

Under beware of what you wish for, Canada has long asked the United States and other NATO partners to step up their commitments to the mission in Afghanistan.

Welcome Barack Obama, who wants to double the U.S. commitment to 60,000 troops on the ground there. The problem for Canada is that after asking for reinforcements as a condition of prolonging our stay there for another two years, Stephen Harper announced during last fall's campaign that we would be leaving the country in 2011.

So, while a liberal Democrat makes one campaign promise to shift the military focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, and even to Pakistan, a Conservative Canadian leader is saying we've done our part and are leaving the neighbourhood. Huh?

Do you think this is going to be on the agenda when the prime minister and the president have their first working session in Ottawa next week? They've already got a full agenda with the recession and their economic recovery plans, trade and protectionism, energy and the environment. But Afghanistan looms large, as Obama's first major foreign policy move, and his first deployment as commander-in-chief.

And there's a lot that can go wrong in a war that is not going well. It is far from clear that a doubling of U.S. troop strength will improve things on the ground, and could even make things worse in the sense that they will be an inviting target for the Taliban insurgency. U.S. air power, while impressive, also has a history of inflicting collateral damage on civilians, which doesn't win over the hearts and minds of local populations.

Obama is in the midst of a 60-day review of the U.S. Afghan mission, and his special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, is currently in the region making his own assessment. For our part, the 2,500 Canadians continue their challenging mission in southern Kandahar province, home base of the Taliban. We have now suffered more than 100 deaths in the country since 2001, and we've been in the south since the summer of 2005.

The geographical, economic, political and ethnic challenges of Afghanistan are no mystery. It is a landlocked country the size of Manitoba, mountainous, rural, remote and bereft of agricultural products and natural resources. It is the fifth poorest country on Earth, and the average Afghan lives on $1 a day. Its major cash crop is poppy, which supplies most of the world's heroin and accounts for two-thirds of the country's output. The country has been called a failed narco state.
More on link

 

[MarkOttawa]

1) The US surge--and (unilateral) strategy review:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-afghan11-2009feb11,0,1063621.story

Obama team works to overhaul Afghanistan-Pakistan policy
The president is likely to decide on the details of a U.S. troop increase in Afghanistan in the coming days, Gates says.

The Obama administration plans to complete its overhaul of U.S. policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan by April, before a crucial NATO summit, the White House said Tuesday in announcing the new head of its review.

Before the reassessment is complete, President Obama is likely to decide on the details of a U.S. troop increase in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said.
"The president will have several options in front of him, and I think he will make those decisions probably in the course of the next few days [emphasis added]," Gates said.

Stepping up its efforts in the region, the administration announced that Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and harsh critic of former President Bush's handling of the conflict in Afghanistan, will chair the White House review.

Now a scholar at the Brookings Institution, Riedel will report to Obama and to retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones Jr., the national security advisor. The White House review is one of several underway in the administration.

Riedel's assignment is to bring together the various strategy proposals.

Riedel last month accused Bush of a "halfhearted effort" in Afghanistan,
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0126_afghanistan_riedel.aspx?rssid=riedelb
and he supports plans to send additional troops, warning that both Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan are in a perilous state.

He also has urged stepped-up road construction and economic development, a position that could be at odds with recent Pentagon thinking. Gates has urged more modest U.S. goals in Afghanistan...

U.S. commanders have said they could send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan this year, nearly doubling the American contingent.

Gates has said that two brigades could be ready to go to Afghanistan by spring and a third by summer.

Riedel, in writings and interviews, has said southern Afghanistan is in chaos and the Taliban is encroaching on Kabul, the capital.

He has called Pakistan "the most dangerous country" in the world because it has nuclear weapons, allows havens for extremists and is a battleground for forces of "reactionary Islamic extremism."

Some military leaders have suggested talks with moderate Taliban groups, but Riedel has been skeptical about efforts at political compromise...

Still lots to hammer out for that strategy: how much emphasis on Afghan national governance/development? talking with which (if any) important Taliban types? what combat strategy and tactics for US forces? what to do about Pakistan? what to do about NATO?

2) Juggling strategy, brigades, and Afstan vs. Iraq:

Obama Weighs Adding Troops in Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/world/asia/12prexy.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

President Obama is facing a choice on whether to grant commanders’ requests for additional troops in Afghanistan before he has decided on his new strategy there.

While the decision is expected to be the first significant military move of his presidency, defense officials said that Mr. Obama could choose a middle ground, deploying several thousand more troops there in the coming months but postponing a more difficult judgment on a much larger increase in personnel until after the administration completes a review of Afghanistan policy.

The officials said that Mr. Obama may deploy one or two additional brigades, between 3,500 and 7,000 soldiers.

But he has other options, and several administration officials said it was also possible — though less likely — that he could postpone any deployments until after his review was complete. Such a move would not find much favor with commanders in Afghanistan, who have a standing request for an additional three brigades, or more than 10,000 soldiers.

It is also possible that Mr. Obama will fill the request for all three brigades, administration officials said.

Mr. Obama’s military commanders want additional brigades in place by late spring or early summer as part of an effort to counter growing violence and chaos in Afghanistan, particularly before presidential elections that are expected to take place there in August...

Referring to the additional brigades being sought by commanders, Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said Mr. Obama “could make a decision about none, one, two or all of them [emphasis added].”

“There are clearly people asking, ‘Do we need to make a decision on all of them now, or can we wait until we’ve decided on our new strategy?’ ” he said. “However, there does need to be a decision made about a couple of brigades sooner rather than later if you want them on the ground in time to make a difference in the security situation for the national election in late August.”..

Defense officials say that Mr. Obama cannot satisfy the request from Gen. David D. McKiernan, the top American commander in Afghanistan, for an additional 30,000 troops there without withdrawing a substantial number of those forces directly from Iraq. But they said Mr. Obama did have the latitude to deploy to Afghanistan at least two more brigades, and possibly more, before he decided on Iraq...

3) Haroon Siddiqui of the Toronto Star seems to be the first Canadian pundit to glom onto the, er, unilateral nature of President Obama's Afghan policy making (something pointed out at the end of this Torch post eight days ago).
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/americanization-of-isaf.html
But that's fine with Mr Siddiqui; simply because, one must assume, the new president is NOT GEORGE BUSH. And if there are any problems created for Canada, it's all--natch--STEPHEN HARPER'S FAULT (one still has Bush-lite to kick around, eh?):

Missing out on Obama's Afghan plan
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/586182

A fundamental shift is underway in American policy on Afghanistan. And Canada should be scrambling to be part of the process.

If we don't, Barack Obama will be handing us, and all the NATO members in the Afghan mission, a fait accompli in about two months.

We saw what he did Monday at his first presidential press conference. He greased the skids under Hamid Karzai. And he committed the U.S. to a broad military, diplomatic and development strategy in a "regional approach," with Pakistan as "a stalwart ally."

That was only a hint of what's happening behind the scenes in Washington and publicly in Asia, where Obama's special envoy Richard Holbrooke is on the road.

The Harper government seems clued out. There was a touch of naïveté when Admiral Mike Mullen, chair of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, came calling Tuesday. Ottawa's reaction was: Whoopee! He didn't ask for our military commitment beyond February 2011.

In fact, the U.S. has not only given up on the allies contributing more troops, it has decided to fight the Taliban with an overwhelmingly American force rather than co-ordinate the NATO forces...

Obama's multi-pronged approach needs much non-military help, which he will be calling for in the days ahead. This should be music to Canadian ears. We should be offering help to strengthen the Afghan civil service, judiciary, election commission, community policing [emphasis added], human rights, etc., and to undertake development work in Pakistan. What we have from Ottawa instead is silence.

COMMUNITY POLICING!?!? Which has worked so well in Toronto?

Mark
Ottwa

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post by Brian Platt at The Canada-Afghanistan Blog:

Dinner With The Governor
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/2009/02/dinner-with-governor.html

I was lucky enough last week to get an invitation to a dinner with the Governor of Kandahar province. We ate at a very nice Afghan restaurant in Surrey.

Tooryalai Wesa was named as the Governor in December, and it was a surprise for quite a few of us in the Vancouver area. Dr. Wesa has taught at the University of British Columbia and been active in the community in various ways, including organizing the Afghan Film Festival.

In November, he agreed to come and speak at UBC for a discussion forum arranged by the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee at UBC. I was excited to meet him again, especially now that he was holding such an important position for Afghanistan--and for Canada...

He spent a bit of time on Kandahar University, which is particularly important to me; next week our UBC club is meeting to put together a concrete proposal to enter into a partnership with Kandahar U., and Dr. Wesa will be an important connection for us.

...Graeme Smith, among many others, has said we should leave Afghans alone to let them mistreat their women as they want.
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-smith-is-wrong.html
Presumably he's not referring to the parents of the 34,000 girls in Kandahar province currently attending school.

I've recorded a few more of the answers the Governor gave on certain subjects.

On supporting Afghanistan's universities:

"When I was a student in Kabul University in 1969, and even before that, the University of Wyoming in the United States, the University of [inaudible] in Germany, the University of Lyon in France, the Russian Polytechnic Institute, and the University of [inaudible] in Cairo, those universities were supporting Kabul University.

"For Kandahar, either we will connect the university to one Canadian university, or one college to different universities; maybe UBC will be one of those, maybe Guelph will be another. Peter Mackay was asking me, can you go a bit further east? In Nova Scotia, he was talking about. I said, well I know about the good nursing schools you have there, maybe someday we will get there."

On the security situation:

"The problem again is the lack of professional people there. We have police forces which are not very well qualified. The Canadians are trying to train them, to educate them as much as possible. We are trying to increase the number of police in Kandahar because in the districts, we don't have enough.

"We are getting good support from the people, the locals. There are some stories--we got a tip that there was a truck with explosives, we sent a team there and the truck was full of explosives, so we asked the Canadian forces to come and destroy them. We find IEDs under bridges, other places, when Afghans tell us...there have been, for the last couple of months, no suicide [attacks] have happened. That was one of the concerns of the media, they were calling me from Canada, 'How come there is no suicides since you took power?' I said, well, are you happy with that or what?

"The support of the people is key. I'm very proud of that, of the support I'm getting here. From across the border, people come to congratulate me. I answer my phone myself, and I have time for everyone. I never tell anyone, okay, I'm busy I have no time. I tell people, if I'm in the office you can come and talk.

"Security is a main concern, it is one of my priorities. I know it's not good to say we'll go back 30 or 40 years, but I will be very successful if I can provide Kandaharis with the school I went to, if I can provide them with the teacher I had in my time when I was in school. The security I had in that time. That is my goal, to go back 40 years and give them what I had."

On the poppy problem:

"Forty percent of poppy cultivation is decreased compared to last year. Because? Because of the high prices of wheat last year, because of the good market we had last year. I want to do this again, with a variety of crops, to create the production. And look for a good market, good domestic markets, good international markets.

"And I talked to the International Trade Minister, and we will have some small agriculture processing industries in the districts. For example, mills to ground wheat. And some conservation projects, some dried fruits. Those are the kinds of things I will look for. People will not grow poppies if they are sure of a stable market and prices. And we have to connect farms to markets with roads, bridges. There are two bridges under construction and a highway."


All in all, it was a very good night. The room was full of those in the Vancouver area who are doing their part for Afghanistan, from Langford firefighters training Afghan firefirghters to volunteers funding wheelchairs for disabled Afghans.

What is often missing from the way Afghanistan gets discussed here is that, as important as the military side of things is, the future of Afghanistan depends on human development and that's where ordinary Canadians can really step up. Whatever your position on whether Canadian soldiers should be fighting in Kandahar, can you really disagree on whether UBC should be helping Kandahar University? This is the kind of stuff that we can be doing more of.

As for Dr. Wesa, he made his passion for Kandahar clear. His job is one of the most difficult and dangerous in the world. Canadians all owe him their support and gratitude for leaving the comfortable confines of Vancouver to go and do his part for building a peaceful future for Afghanistan.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post by Terry Glavin, relevant to AfPak:

Tariq Ali: Archetype of the Dead Left
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/02/tariq-ali-archetype-of-dead-left.html

And from Raphael Alexander:

The Cognitive Dissonance Of The “Pseudo-Left”
http://unambig.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/the-cognitive-dissonance-of-the-pseudo-left/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Dealing with St. Steve Staples and Prof. Michael Byers--a Torch post:

Afstan shocker! Canadian troops could stay
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/afstan-shocker-canadian-troops-could.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Two more Torch posts:

Keep that Air Wing at Kandahar (plus quite a bit of Army)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/keep-that-air-wing-at-kandahar-plus.html

"Getting our act together in Afghanistan"--and roads
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/getting-our-act-together-in-afghanistan.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Maybe it's all about roads:

1) Thomas Ricks

Getting our act together in Afghanistan
Sun, 02/15/2009 - 11:26am
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/15/getting_our_act_together_in_afghanistan

Here is a guest report from my friend Maj. Daniel Morgan, who is not the Revolutionary War general, but who is nearing the end of a tour of duty with 101st Airborne in Afghanistan (and also has a couple of Iraq tours under his belt).

I was especially struck by his point about cross-border communications between units below high-level headquarters. It is the type of answer that doesn't occur to anybody in a national capital -- but can make a major difference to someone spending a year-long combat tour in a remote corner of eastern Afghanistan:

'As I wind up here and think through things, I want to address what I think is the main focus here for success from a BCT [brigade combat team] perspective.  . . . .  [M]y belief is that for Afghanistan, the following three principles apply:

1.  Partnership.  There are two, if not three, partnership efforts here with Afghan Security Forces, consisting of the Afghan Army, Police and if on the border, the Border Police. Units must sacrifice to support the partnership method at the US battalion and BCT levels. It is only here that ANSF forces will take the lead. . .

2. Road Infrastructure. This is simple. Afghanistan is not Iraq. The tribes are not tribes here. They are communal villages or communities for two reasons. First, the rugged, foreboding terrain separates them by sheer physical presence. So, they have different needs and interests. Second, the infrastructure does not connect them to basic services or government. You have to build roads--this brings security, health clinics, markets/bazaars, etc. However, that is not enough. It is here where our example of the infamous Khost-Gardez Road success demonstrates how a BCT must fight this fight; whereas two Russian Divisions were slaughtered by the mujahideen. We have influenced mullas and tribal elders; hired a percentage of local nationals and bartered for their pay until we agreed; we built radio towers and issued radios to the population and embarked on an information campaign; we put the Afghan Police on the road to interact; we put the Afghan Army in the villages on patrol and in key observation posts in the high ground; we flew the Afghan Governor to the key population densities to maintain support and get the population to be the guarantor of security; and we conducted dozens of AASLTs and killed and destroyed the enemy and their logistics through aerial and ground signal intel and use of aerial observation. This technique applies to counternarcotics as well. You cannot eradicate unless there is security present in the area and some form of governance and alternative for the population.

3. Afghan Border and Military Diplomacy. The border requires a decentralized approached to controlling the FATA [the Pakistani border area] and other border regions to stop the back-and-forth movement of the enemy. US, Afghan, and Pakistan BDE [brigade] Commanders must be ordered and held accountable for this effort. Lessons from our poor border effort with Mexico are a prime example. Our DoS [Department of State] and DoD [Department of Defense] leadership must gain support between Afghan and Pakistan officials to build a common communication architecture at the tactical level, defined as platoon to battalion level in order to coordinate operations - not at the CJTF and General Headquarters in Islamabad. Right now, everything is at the top and the BCTs and below make modest gains now. We need to go ahead and purchase commercial off-the-shelf communications for the tactical level and someone must develop manage it between the two countries. If you do not isolate the enemy from the freedom of movement across the border, this will never end -- because all the enemy needs to do is use the terrain that separates the tribes and lack of road infrastructure that prevents connection to government and security to maintain their influence and numbers in countless safe havens.

Lastly, this remains a military operation. Until we figure out how to coordinate and streamline the interagency to report and remain within the military Commander's intent, we will continue to waste resources in a "whack-a-mole" process vice [instead of] within the correct population densities overlaid on terrain and other key factors.'

2) VAMPIRE 06

Dear President Obama
Jan. 22, 2009
http://afghanistanshrugged.com/2009/01/22/dear-president-obama.aspx

...
Roads, we need more of them. A lot more! This is the cornerstone to building Afghanistan and the government. The Romans were successful not because of military technology, it helped, but because they built an extensive road network. Many of which still exist today and are in better shape than roads in Afghanistan.

Without roads the Afghans don’t really need a centralized government. That’s a broad statement but I’ll qualify it here in a minute. The tribe pretty much provides what they need. The tribe protects them, settles disputes and enforces laws. They’re more than capable of doing this and have been for the last several centuries. They fulfill the basic governmental requirements common defense, law and order.

The tribes though can’t build and maintain roads. Now, you need a centralized government to construct, maintain and protect the roads. You get an influx of money as people work on the roads and they quit getting paid to blow us up and it stimulates a demand for goods and services.

With the road comes inter-province commerce for which you need regulation by a central government; a function a tribe can’t accomplish. Sounds kind of like a little situation we had around 1776. The road brings money, communication and progress. You cut the link between Pakistan and the tribal regions because it’s now easier to travel to the interior of Afghanistan to get medical treatment, goods, services the whole lot.

So with a simple road we’ve now created an environment friendly to the support of the Afghan central government. That doesn’t exist now. It’s a lot easier to explain to the Afghans that the Army and police protect the roads and regulate commerce. Additionally taking the, “this is a war on Islam” factor out of the situation.

We’re making sure people can conduct trade and are free to travel as they wish. Sounds like freedom.

Democracy and liberty are damn hard concept to explain to someone who doesn’t see any benefit from the government in Kabul. So what if I elect the guy if he does nothing for me? The population earns money and then we explain that the government will protect their continued ability to do so and that’s a discussion someone understands...

The CF, for their part, have been taking on road-building:

Canadian military road-building project provides lifeline for Afghani people
Canadian military will spending $4.5 million over two years on 6.5-kilometre Panjwaii road
Feb. 13, 2008
http://www.dailycommercialnews.com/article/id26384

PANJWAII DISTRICT, AFGHANISTAN

Roads are for the living but the Canadian military has begun a massive road-building project that will also honour the dead in one of the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan.

The $4.5 million project to pave 6.5 kilometres of road that a local elder called the “Spine of the Panjwaii” is a two-year undertaking that will give jobs to more than 400 Afghans...

Would be interesting to know how that project is going.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Video of a forthright and extensive interview with the president's new special representative for AfPak, from the PBS "Newshour", Feb. 18:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/module.html?mod=0&pkg=18022009&seg=4

Mark
Ottawa

 

[observor 69]

The New York Times

February 20, 2009
Editorial

Salvaging Afghanistan

President Obama and his aides haven’t completed their policy review for Afghanistan — one of the most dangerous of the many foreign policy disasters George W. Bush so blithely left behind. But the situation is unraveling so quickly that aides say that the president decided that he had no choice but to send another 17,000 troops while commanders and diplomats try to come up with a strategy to stop the bloodletting and to try to block the Taliban from recapturing the country. There isn’t a lot of time.

In coming weeks, Mr. Obama will have to grapple with a series of very difficult questions starting with how he will define success in Afghanistan. The president will have to consider whether to keep supporting a central government in Kabul or focus more on cultivating local leaders. The rampant corruption of President Hamid Karzai’s government has driven far too many Afghans back to the extremists.

During the campaign, Mr. Obama said that he was open to talks with some Afghan militants. In recent weeks, American commanders said they are expanding contacts with so-called moderate members of the Taliban. At this point, there may be no other choice.

But we are deeply skeptical that there is any deal to be cut with Taliban leaders who gave sanctuary to Al Qaeda before 9/11 and would undoubtedly insist on reimposing their repressive, medieval ways, including denying education and medical care to women.

Mr. Obama and his team also must quickly come up with a plan to more effectively expand and train the Afghan Army (which eventually must replace American and NATO troops) and police force, curb a $720 million Afghan opium industry that finances the Taliban and encourage development along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

Mr. Obama will have to figure out a way to persuade NATO allies to send more troops — with orders to fight — and more money. Along with the United States, Britain, Canada and the Netherlands have been carrying nearly all of the burden. The new American president has rock star ratings in Europe. He needs to leverage some of that to get leaders there to finally ante up.

Mr. Obama’s biggest challenge will be trying to figure out how to persuade Pakistan that the fight against extremism is not a favor to the Americans. It is essential to Pakistan’s own survival.

The nuclear-armed country faces terrifying problems: political and economic instability, home-grown extremists who are far too cozy with Pakistan’s intelligence services, a lawless border region used by the Taliban to execute bloody attacks on Afghanistan. This week the government effectively ceded the Swat Valley — which is in the border region but just 100 miles from Islamabad — to militants in a misguided bid for a false peace.

The White House’s decision to bring senior Pakistani and Afghan officials into the policy discussion — they visit Washington next week — is very welcome. Saudi Arabia, Iran and India must also be involved.

Mr. Obama goes to Europe the first week of April for a NATO summit. He has told aides to come up with a strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan before then. Given how fast things are coming apart in Afghanistan — the Taliban have now moved into peaceful areas near Kabul — they may have to decide even faster.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/opinion/20fri1.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

 

[leroi]

Video of a forthright and extensive interview with the president's new special representative for AfPak, from the PBS "Newshour", Feb. 18:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/module.html?mod=0&pkg=18022009&seg=4

Mark
Ottawa

Thanks Mark that was a good interview.  Halbrooke seems like a straight-shooter. I kinda chortled at the end when Judy tried to criticize Obama for not acting on Afghanistan sooner--good lord how much faster could he act? It's only a month or so since he became president, isn't it?

Here are three C's for my wish-list on the Afghan mission: Consultation, Coordination & Collaboration between partner countries. :nod:

It's good he's begun consulting with other countries on Afghanistan. Steven Harper and Lawrence Cannon go to New York next week:


After Obama visit, PM and Minister Cannon head to U.S. to talk Afghanistan

Associated Press (Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.)
Feb. 20, 2009


OTTAWA — In the wake of Barack Obama's trip to Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and one of his senior ministers will travel to the United States next week.

Afghanistan will be on the agenda for both Harper and Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon on their separate trips to New York and Washington.

Officials on both sides of the border say the visits will emphasize development issues in Afghanistan, not combat.

The non-military focus of those discussions was announced Friday as White House officials acknowledged Canada's stated position that it will end its combat role in 2011.

Obama revealed during his visit that he did not press Harper for an extended commitment, and the president's officials said Friday that they will now steer the conversation to other areas.

"Prime Minister Harper stressed the fact that this was not open for review. They were going to be there until 2011," said James Steinberg, U.S. deputy secretary of state .

"I think, from the president's point of view, the focus was, we're going to focus on the other legs of the stool - on the governance issues, on the development issues, on the political strategy."

He said during a media briefing that the new U.S. administration wants to hear Canada's opinions as it conducts a strategic review of its own Afghan operations.

Obama has already said he will send at least 17,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan, as combat intensifies there while it winds down in Iraq.

Steinberg added that with a critical NATO summit just six weeks away, the new administration must quickly determine how allied countries can co-ordinate their efforts more effectively.

"Until we have greater clarity about what we think the right way forward is, we're not focusing on specific asks so much as really collaborating and consulting with others about their own views about this," Steinberg said.

"As we get closer to the summit, obviously, we're going to want to work with our allies to have a more concrete game plan about who can contribute what."

The prime minister will head to New York on Monday for a pair of meetings.

The first - with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon - will focus on global security and on Afghanistan.

A Canadian official, citing safety concerns, declined to say whether the recent abduction of diplomat Robert Fowler in Niger would also be discussed.

Harper has also scheduled a round-table meeting with business leaders in New York, with the global financial crisis is likely to be the top item.

Harper's U.S. visit was being planned before Obama came to Canada. But the official said it will help capitalize on the goodwill created during the president's trip.

And he said that Conservatives hope positive initiatives will define the Canada-U.S. conversation, instead of allowing inevitable skirmishes over trade and foreign policy dominate discussion as they have in the past.

"There will always be irritants in a relationship that is as broad and deep as the Canada-U.S. relationship," the Canadian official said.

"But it is in the interests of both countries not to let the irritants becoming the defining features of that relationship."

On Tuesday, Cannon will visit Washington for a meeting with his famous American counterpart: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

American and Canadian officials said the two will talk about Afghanistan, and the ongoing U.S. strategic review.

"The prime minister and president set out an agenda yesterday," said Cannon spokeswoman Catherine Loubier.

"Minister Cannon and secretary Clinton are immediately engaging to deliver on this agenda."

Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

 

[Kirkhill]

"The United States, for a whole series of reasons, from exceptionalism to neo-conism to hubris to ignorance about the world, is conducting itself in a way that is creating a lot of enemies

So says Paul Heinbecker "former Canadian Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations and former Ambassador to Germany ".......an obviously even-handed appreciation of US intent.

And people wonder why Canada was/is considered anti-american.

 

[dreddman]

Everyone,
This is not a reply but a request. First of all and I want the administrators to know this. I am not in the military but I am head of policy for the Progressive Canadian Party. I found this site when I was goggling Flora MacDonald and saw some comments from the rank and file about her work in Afghanistan. I was impressed with what I read, so much so that I wanted to join. I am starting talks with Ms. MacDonald about working with us to chart a policy on Afghanistan that is different than any other Canadian Party. I also believe that the people on the front lines know more about the situations the Canadian Military face better than any paper produced by someone in Ottawa. If I am allowed, I would like to hear from people from this site on their views on the Canadian Military and its future roles. If I am not allowed to still be on this site, I would like to offer my personal email at rmorley1@sympatico.ca to still hear from you. Thank you

 

[The Bread Guy]

Some recent quotes from CAN politicians re:  2011....

...."We have a firm date, an end to the combat mission," Defence Minister Peter MacKay told reporters in Krakow, Poland on Friday ....

....Mr. Ignatieff hinted his Liberals may support an extension of Canada's military mission if a real strategy is developed.  "What I said to the president very directly is that you can't get us to re-up in a situation of strategic incoherence," Mr. Ignatieff said.  When asked if he'd support an American request to extend the mission, the Liberal leader said: "We cross that bridge when we come to it.  We're bound by the parliamentary resolution. I've said clearly that our party's position, currently, is that the military phase of the mission ends in 2011" ....

 

[PanaEng]

Some recent quotes from CAN politicians re:  2011....

... and people wonder why I like Ignatieff...

 

[The Bread Guy]

Highlights mine...

Cost of the Afghanistan mission 2001-2011
Government of Canada backgrounder, 25 Feb 09
Backgrounder link (.pdf also attached if link not working)

Canada’s aim is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a viable country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure. We are there with more than 50 other nations and international organizations, at the request of the democratically-elected Afghan government and as part of a UN-mandated, NATO-led mission. Canada is among the top bilateral donors in Afghanistan in the world today and Afghanistan is the single largest recipient of Canadian development aid.

The incremental cost of the mission to the Government of Canada (GoC) in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2011 is currently estimated at approximately $11.3 billion, excluding post-2011 disability and health care costs for veterans. These incremental costs are calculated at approximately $9B for National Defence (DND) and approximately $2.3B for other departments – including $1.7B for the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), $400M for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) (costs for Corrections and the RCMP are included in DFAIT calculations), and $150M for Veteran’s Affairs Canada (VAC)....

More on link, attachment

 

[GAP]

Life as a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan
Posted By BRENNAN CRUSE Posted 2 hours ago
  Article Link

Imagine lying in the middle of the desert with the sound of bombs all around you, and terrified to death that someone is going to see you lying there. And if they do, knowing that you will have to be quick to fire your gun because if you don't, then they will fire at you. Imagine knowing that you could die any minute, that you could just be driving along and a bomb explode, blowing you to pieces. And imagine, wondering every day of your life if you'll ever see your family again.

Honourable judges and fellow guests, I have just described for you, the life of a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan.

Remember the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center back in September of 2001? Well, in response to these attacks, the president of the United States launched an invasion of Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden, the terrorist leader that was behind the Sept. 11 attacks. And then, in January of 2002, Canadian troops were sent to Afghanistan to perform a peacekeeping mission. Yeah, that's right, a peacekeeping mission. That was what we were sent there for.

Now, seven years later, and after losing 108 of our Canadian soldiers, I would say that our job in Afghanistan, one of the most unforgiving places on earth, is far more than a peacekeeping mission. When the Canadian government agreed to support the United States by sending our troops into Afghanistan, they thought it would be a sprint, not a marathon. They thought it would all be over in two months. And even now, they keep changing the date that they say we will pull our troops out -- at first they said we would be out of there in 2007, then it was 2009, now they're saying 2011. I wonder what's next. The news from A f g ha n i s t a n has never been assuring, and Canadian troops in A f g ha n i s t a n face the dangers of war daily. Currently, we have 2,700 Canadian troops posted in Kandahar City, one of the most dangerous locations on the planet.

What are our Canadian troops doing over there? Well, their job is to help the Afghan military stabilize their country. What this means is that our Canadian soldiers are training the Afghan soldiers to protect their people from the Taliban terrorists. The problem is, these terrorists are hiding bombs all over the place, and thousands of innocent people have lost their lives, and more die, every single day. Roadside bombs and suicide bombers are everywhere. Suicide bombers are convinced that they will go to paradise if they kill the foreign soldiers.

Even after seven long years of training, the Afghan military still are not trained. The number of attacks is on the increase, and the number of Canadian soldiers dead continues to rise. Just in December, we lost seven more Canadian soldiers.

Canadians in Afghanistan are unable to move among the local people unless they are armed and battle ready. They can't trust their safety to the Afghan army, even though they have been training them for years.

When is it all going to end? When are our Canadian troops going to come home at last? How are we ever going to get out of there, when the terrorist attacks keep happening? Do you really think that we will ever be able to stabilize a country that has never been strong enough to stabilize themselves? I don't mean to sound like we shouldn't help other countries, of course we should. But come on, enough is enough.

And, on a more personal note, my uncle, Casey, is one of those soldiers over in Afghanistan. Every day for him is like a lottery ticket, you never know what's going to happen, whether you're going to win or lose, live, or die. My uncle's military vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb two weeks ago. His Afghan interpreter was blown to bits, he said it was like raining body parts. His best friend had both his eardrums blown out. My uncle was lucky that all he got was an injured back. This time anyway.

When Canadian soldiers die in Afghanistan, they are flown home on military planes and begin a procession down Highway 401, now called the Highway of Heroes. Canadian people stand on the bridges all along the highway and salute our fallen soldiers. The family gathers at the military base to say one last goodbye to their loved one.

I sure hope my family never gets that call to say goodbye.
More on link