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

[MarkOttawa]

Start of a Torch post:

New USAF Air Wing established at KAF
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-usaf-air-wing-established-at-kaf.html

The USAF is a generally unreported part of the American surge...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Germans changing ROEs and reducing caveats--anyone else have some info?

German Troops Beef Up Fight against Taliban
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,635192,00.html#ref=nlint

Behind closed doors, the German government is slowly but surely changing the rules for combat on Afghanistan, allowing its forces to take a more offensive approach. At the same time, German popular support for the "war" that no one wants to a call war continues to decline...

On April 8, nobody even noticed when a few words -- important words --were deleted from a NATO document. One of the deleted phrases was: "The use of lethal force is prohibited unless an attack is taking place or is imminent."

On March 3, 2006, the Germans had this sentence added to the NATO operations plan for Afghanistan as a "national clarification" or caveat. Bundeswehr soldiers were only to shoot in self defense. And there were further explanations in bylaws 421 to 424 as well as in rule 429 A and B. For instance, Germans were not to refer to their actions using the word "attack." Instead they would talk about the "use of appropriate force."

Changing the Rules So Quietly It's Almost Secretive

None of this applies anymore. Major General Erhard Bühler, director of Joint Commitments Staff, had spent a long time working to have these phrases removed. In April, Bühler finally managed to secure Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung's approval.

This was done so quietly as to appear almost secretive. Not even the German parliament's defense committee was informed of this small but significant change. When Werner Hoyer, a politician with the business-friendly, liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP), heard of the changes last Friday, his first reaction was to ask why parliament had not been made aware of the changes -- especially before voting on a resolution to approve the deployment of German military personnel in the NATO AWACS mission in Afghanistan.

Niels Annen, a member of parliament for the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), voiced his irritation over the Bundeswehr's secretive handling of the case. "The way this was done raises questions," Annen said -- even though, he added, he had no fundamental objections to the adjustments. Fellow member of parliament Eckart von Klaeden, with the conservative Christian Democrats, said that, generally, he welcomed the change even though he had only just heard about it. It makes sense to "make the rules of engagement conform to military requirements and to the mission's goals," he said.

This policy is now outlined on the pocket-sized reference card of combat guidelines that German soldiers carry with them [emphasis added]. The Bundeswehr calls it "a structural adjustment;" the Defense Ministry's legal department is considering swapping Chapters II and III on the pocket card around. This means that the chapter, "Use of Military Force to Complete a Mission" would be placed ahead of the chapter, "Use of Military Force in Self-Defense" -- which, one assumes, would mean that the former becomes more important. Additionally, to avoid future misunderstandings, examples will be included to illustrate to soldiers when they are permitted to use lethal force...

Combat has become routine for German soldiers stationed in Kunduz [emphasis added]. After returning to the camp, the men mentioned their "TICs," or "troops in contact" (military jargon for enemy contact) almost casually. For them, requesting American "Reaper" drones to fire at booby traps is just common practice now...

Anyway, clearly not all the soldiers are unnerved by the finer legal details of combat. On May 7, in view of a German convoy, a number of Afghan fighters jumped off their motorcycles and went into combat position. But before they could fire their rockets and assault rifles, the Bundeswehr troops opened fire on them, killing at least two.

"What happened afterwards gave the troops a sense of security," said Klein. Instead of launching an investigation, as would have been the case in the past, the public prosecutor's office in Potsdam, near Berlin, concluded that the soldiers had acted in self-defense. Klein and his men see this as setting a precedent. "Soldiers need courage in the field, what they certainly don't need is fear of a public prosecutor," noted one officer...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[observor 69]

An interview from a few days ago but I just came across the link.

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/militaryafghanistan/afghanistan_panel_discussion.html

I think David Bercuson showed admirable patience with the clueless one Steven Staples.
I was almost ready to throw a shoe at my TV every time Staples opened his mouth.
The lady panelist,  Nelofer Pazira, even shot Staples down when he made uninformed statements.  :nod:

 

[MarkOttawa]

A Torch post (note "Comments"):

Canadian special forces ops in Afstan (and CSIS)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/07/canadian-special-forces-ops-in-afstan.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[zipperhead_cop]

An interview from a few days ago but I just came across the link.

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/militaryafghanistan/afghanistan_panel_discussion.html

I think David Bercuson showed admirable patience with the clueless one Steven Staples.
I was almost ready to throw a shoe at my TV every time Staples opened his mouth.
The lady panelist,  Nelofer Pazira, even shot Staples down when he made uninformed statements.  :nod:

Staples comes off as a whiny, apologist that can't let go of the misguided concept that you can't win a war from a desk.  At the end, when they pretty much mock him by saying that anyone from the UN who goes outside a secured area would be killed or kidnapped, was kind of funny.  You could tell that Ms. Pazira and Mr. Bercuson had been restraining themselves, but since the interview was ending they were more interested in cutting loose. 

 

[OldSolduer]

So Mr. Staples wants to neogitate a peace? Good luck. You don't negotiate with murderers and thugs....sorry Steven, that lady shot your "solution" full of holes.

 

[Franko]

We should ask both Staples and Layton to go over on a "fact finding mission" and get them in a LAV.

As soon as the convoy comes into contact, drop the ramp and tell them to ignore the bullets and go over there and negotiate.

Freakin' surrender monkeys.      :

Regards

 

[George Wallace]

I'm with the 53% of Canadians that oppose the war, waste of time and resources.

So?  Your solution is?

1.  Bring the war on terror home and fight it here.

  -  Sorry.  That is already being done.

2.  Admit defeat, and give the Terrorists free reign to perform their acts wherever they please.

  -  That means they can increase their activities freely here at home.

3.  Withdraw from Afghanistan and leave their people defenceless.

  -  Currently we are mentoring the Afghan Police and Military to teach them to have the capabilities to bring stabilization to their Region and govern their country by themselves.  To leave would mean that they do not get the training to protect themselves and eventually permit us to leave them in a stable environment. 

4.  Go through the drive-through and leave with our lunch.  Frig the rest.

- Seems to be the most common feeling of those who have no pride, no conscious, no remorse, no desire to make the world a better place.  These are people who only care about what is in their pocket; in their tiny little world.  People who have no concept of how good their lives are, and don’t give any thought to their own safety.  People are the first to complain should something infringe on their space. 

  -  Mindless drones.

 

[OldSolduer]

I'm with the 53% of Canadians that oppose the war, waste of time and resources.

You have a right to express your opinion and I fully support that. I do not agree with your position, nor your logic.
Your right to free speech was given to you by hundreds of thousands of Canadians in two world wars, Korea and now Afghanistan. Think about that.
Three young men died on 3 September 2008 so you could come on this forum and rightfully express your opposition to the war in Afghanistan. Several others died before them, and several others died after them. 

 

[vonGarvin]

I don't think this is winnable. There is just too much terrorism all around there, to control.

Opposition to war has its merits.  People die.  People get maimed.  It's horrible.  Having said all that, by stating that there is just too much terrorism, you are basically saying that due to enemy violence, we should stop.  I disagree with your position.

Sometimes it is necessary to use force to stop force. Not just physical violence, but also other means, such as political, social, etc.  I'm assuming that you agree that having an armed police force in Canada is a necessity.  Remember that crime will not go away.  It is pervasive and the police (as one example) are part of the system to help protect us.  There are other parts to the system, namely, the justice system, social norms and a whole whack of other parts that all help to keep us all safe from, well, from us.

I open the floor to you to offer up solutions.  Do not for one minute even suggest that if things get too bad over there, we'll just allow the refugees to come flocking to Canada.  Afghanistan, for good or for bad, is home to some thirty million souls.  Should those who use indiscriminate violence emerge victorious, then it will be for worse (for them).  Then what do we do?  Wring our hands?  My personal opinion is that we (the collective states of ISAF and OEF) are on the right track.  Unlike the Soviets, we are not trying to conquer a people.  Unlike the Soviets, who were up against a wide variety of Afghan groups, we face virtually one group: religious fanatics known collectively as "Taliban".  Unlike the Soviets, we are not facing a broad-based uprising whilst trying to fight another (Cold) War.  Unlike the Soviets, we are a collection of many, MANY states, all determined (to varying degrees, I admit) to perservere in the face of adversity.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Still a good war--a post by BruceR at Flit:

Reasons for positive thinking

I and others may cavil about long-term sustainability of our plans, or note disappointment wastes of time or money, or wonder aloud whether our priorities as Afghanistan's allies need to be re-ordered a little. But there can be no question that Afghanistan is still on the whole a nicer, safer place than it was in 2001, or 1991 for that matter. Kabul is booming.
http://www.registan.net/index.php/2009/07/16/good-news-kabul-is-booming/
And Peter Bergen is right that the majority of Afghans' war for a better future for themselves is far from lost, for reasons he aptly outlines here [note "In fact, any number of empire builders, from Alexander the Great to the Mogul emperor Babur in the sixteenth century to the British in the Second Afghan War three decades after their infamous defeat, have won military victories in Afghanistan. The graveyard of empires metaphor belongs in the graveyard of clichés."].
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0907.bergen.html
The cause that we committed to, and in which Canadians continue to die,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/canadian-soldier-dies-in-afghanistan/article1220588/
is still a just one. If I didn't continue to believe that, I frankly wouldn't care about the problems that have been identified as much as I do.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

More on Afghan mythology at The Torch:

"Unconquerable Afghans": What the Globe and Mail publishes and does not
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/07/unconquerable-afghans-what-globe-and.html

Jack Layton: Simply ignorant or just plain lazy?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/jack-layton-simply-ignorant-or-just.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Journeyman]

waning gibbous  ???

Between one new, degree-holding poster who actually acknowledges that his "questions would be easily answered by doing in-depth BASIC research or just talking to a recruitment officer," and another who claims to want to defend Canada (in SOF no less [or "SWAT" : )...as long as the deploying authority gets his approval first...

I figured the actual term for the moon's phase wouldn't be noticed, being way above their heads..... I still believe that there's a tinfoil hat-induced full moon out there somewhere!

 

[Foxhound]

- Sometime during the last century, I was being wheeled into surgery at NDMC (the real one), and I asked if I would be able to play the piano after the operation. a gullible nurse answered "Of course!"  A doctor gave her a pitying look, then asked me "Can you play the piano now, Master Corporal?"

"No sir", I answered.

"Then you won't be able to play the piano after the surgery, either."

The nurse then said, "I never heard that one before!" which earned her the second pitying look from the doctor, and probably not her last...

Same situation, same NDMC, might have been the same nurse after having had a few pitying looks.

As I was being wheeled in, bloopy-eyed on pre-op morphine, I summoned up what wit was left to me and asked, "Will I be able to play the glockenspiel after this?"  (Variation on the old piano joke.)  Keep in mind that as a member of the Corps of Drums, I did play the glockenspiel.

The nurse, obviously knowing the punchline told me, "No Corporal, you won't."  At which point I croaked, "No way!", freaked out and tried to hop (well, fall) off the gurney to escape to my room.  That worked out well, they still got my tonsils.

Anyhow, nice move "giver", what do you do for an encore...?

 

[bran]

Does anyone think that we will actually pull out of Afghanistan by the current 2011 date?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Does anyone think that we will actually pull out of Afghanistan by the current 2011 date?

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, are the views of historian (and occasional Army.ca contributor) Jack Granatstein:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-afghan-mission-going-going-gone/article1225033/

The Afghan mission: going, going, gone?
Come 2011, no one should assume that Canada's military presence in Afghanistan will end at one stroke

J. L. Granatstein

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Tuesday, Jul. 21, 2009

The latest opinion polls on Canada's role in Afghanistan are very clear: Support for the war is dropping as Canadians see the casualties rising and the prospects for quick success declining.

A majority of those polled by EKOS and Ipsos Reid want Canadian troops out by 2011, exactly as the House of Commons resolution in 2008 said. None of this means Canadians do not support the troops; they do. Nor does it mean they want to cease efforts to help in the development work needed to bring Afghanistan into the modern world. But they do not want Canadian soldiers to continue their role in the fighting.

This is not an unreasonable position. Canada has been in Afghanistan since 2002 - in different roles, to be sure, but present with armed troops on the ground (and now in the air, too). The Canadian Forces have lost 125 men and women, and many more have been wounded in body and mind. The price has been high and, as the insurgency spikes this summer, reasonable citizens can raise hard questions about the long-term value and results of the Canadian mission.

The army, too, has its concerns. With only 20,000 soldiers in all and with a rotation of troops every six months, it has become a terrible struggle to find and train the battle groups we put in the field. Some soldiers are already doing their third rotation into Kandahar; by 2011, some may have completed five tours. Think of the effect of that on families at home and on the psyches of the soldiers.

Moreover, the army's equipment in the field, its light-armoured vehicles and Leopard tanks, are being worn down by continuous operation in harsh conditions. Improvised explosive devices not only kill soldiers - they also seriously batter equipment. Although Ottawa has been very good in giving the troops what they need to fight the war, by 2011, both men and equipment will need rest and refurbishing.

But will it be as easy to get out of Afghanistan as Parliament and the public want? First, there will be a sense on the part of the Afghans that Canada is cutting and running. That is painful to contemplate, given the blood and treasure already spent. Some of our NATO allies will use our departure as an excuse to do the same. That is galling, considering how little that many NATO members have done in the war and the caveats that have kept most of those that have sent troops out of harm's way.

And then there are the Americans. The Obama administration has made the Afghan war its own - out of Iraq (soon) and into Afghanistan (now). The U.S. Army is taking command of the fighting and NATO is being pushed to the side, but Washington will still want allies. U.S. pressure has been gentle so far; we can expect that to increase in 2010, and it will require some toughness for Ottawa to say no to Barack Obama. That Canada might have a general election in 2010 will only complicate matters.

So what do we do? If the Canadian government stays on its present course of getting out in 2011 - and both the opinion polling and government statements suggest it will - the battle groups will come out, as planned. But what about the Provincial Reconstruction Team? Canadians approve of development assistance in Afghanistan, and the reconstruction team delivers just that. Does it stay? And if it does, can it function without military protection?

And what about the Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams (the wonderfully named Omelettes) that help train the Afghan National Army's army battalions? If the insurgency is to be defeated, the Afghan soldiers will be required to function at a high level. There will be support for keeping a substantial number of Canadian Forces trainers in the field. The same applies to the police mentors. There might even be government and public support for continuing to operate helicopters there to help the allied forces get off the IED-infested roads. If only Afghanistan had a coast, there would likely be support for sending a Canadian frigate or two.

So where will we be in and after 2011? No one, of course, can forecast the course of events in Kabul, Washington and Ottawa with confidence two years ahead. But no one should assume that Canada's military presence will end at one stroke. There are likely to be Omelettes on the ground and soldiers protecting a continuing reconstruction team. There will be police trainers. There may be an air component.

What does it all come down to? There will be Canadians in Kandahar for the foreseeable future.

J. L. Granatstein is senior research fellow at the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute.

So, there’s one well connected, well informed opinion.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Does anyone think that we will actually pull out of Afghanistan by the current 2011 date?

Well, to play the nit-picking devil's advocate  , there's a case to be made that, according to Parliament's Resolution on the issue (also see attached .pdf), we have to be out of Kandahar by the end of 2011:

    “…. it is the opinion of the House,

    that Canada should continue a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to July 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan, and that the military mission should consist of:

    (a) training the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can expeditiously take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole;

    (b) providing security for reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar;

    (c) the continuation of Canada’s responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team;

    that, consistent with this mandate, this extension of Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:

    (a) NATO secure a battle group of approximately 1000 to rotate into Kandahar (operational no later than February 2009);

    (b) to better ensure the safety and effectiveness of the Canadian contingent, the government secure medium helicopter lift capacity and high performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009; and

    (c) the government of Canada notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, and, as of that date, the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011 ….”

 

[vonGarvin]

Hmmm...waning gibbous. I was sure it would be a full moon.

Personally, I'm torn between  :  and    op:

Though that's a gibbous, it's waxing, not waning. *ducking*

OK, now to keep on topic.
Mr. Granatstein's piece is, as usual, very intelligent and informative.  One thing to remember: if the Government says "no military role", then that means no OMLT (that's a military role), no Air force: nothing.  (Other than MPs at the embassy, of course).  This is one we must continue to watch.  Now that Mr. Obama is POTUS, then what will the dippers, who have a love-affair with Mr. Obama et al , do now?

 

[TCBF]

-"Amatuers study tactics - professionals study logistics" (Bradley? Napoleon?)

- So, if you were a militarily small country that wanted to be out of a land-locked third-world desert country in two years, and you were actually SERIOUS about being out in two years, at what point would you start moving out your several thousand seacans full of stuff?

- Just asking...

 

[bran]

Those are articles are good points. However I think that we cannot leave Afghanistan so early, how is our government going to leave behind allies such as the British and the US to fight in Helmand and Kandahar provinces by themself? I would hate to see what they would have to say about us packing up and leaving before the job is done. Personally I think it makes us look bad, and I'm pretty sure that our troops aren't wanting to leave before the job is done either.