• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

US COIN operations on PowerPoint--from Paul at Celestial Junk:
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2009/11/outstanding-powerpoint.html

If you've got a bit of time and are interested, the following two PowerPoint presentations offer an incredible insight into US COIN operations in Afghanistan...

Mark
Ottawa
 
From today's Globe & Mail:
Preparations have begun for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan, as the 2011 deadline for that withdrawal draws closer.

A government official confirmed media reports that General Walter Natynczyk, the Chief of the Defence Staff, has ordered preparations to get under way that would involve the return of the thousands of troops and their equipment from the troubled country.

“A Chief of Defence Staff directive has been issued to begin planning preparations for the 2011 end of combat mission,” the official told The Globe and Mail Friday.

(....)

Defence Minister Peter MacKay has refused to rule out the possibility of keeping support troops in the country after the end of the 2011 deadline. But these logistical preparations confirm that the government is indeed determined to end any substantive combat role by the end of the year after next.

Those preparations will be complex. While Canada's “lift” capacity has improved in recent years, it will still probably be necessary to rent airplanes to ferry the troops and equipment back to Canada.

The withdrawal will represent an ambiguous conclusion, at best, to a major military effort that made some progress in security civilian authority in the southern part of the country, without dislodging the Islamist militants who are determined to force out allied forces and retake control.

Ooooooooookay, the Globe gets one for the scoop of "Ok, folks, get ready to get out", but zero on the follow-up - did anyone ask the "government official" happy to be quoted without attribution what's going to be left (if anything)?
 
....as quoted by the Toronto Star:
"I've put out instructions back in August on our planning and preparation with regard to 2011," he said. "Our allies are well aware, NATO is well aware of our intentions because ... it takes a year or so to prepare all the troops ... to replace us .... I don't have additional knowledge of where the laydown is, but I would say the chances are that the U.S. will continue to replace what we're doing in Kandahar province .... That would be at this point my assumption."
 
As an ex-DGMPO wallah, I'm actually stunned that planning has not started already. In fact, I would bet that various courses of action have been staff checked/war gamed and more than a few folks have a pretty good handle on what has to be done.
 
The end of a Torch post:

Afstan: Planning to end (most of?) the CF's mission/Update: Dutch and Aussies
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/afstan-planning-to-end-most-of-cfs.html

...
Hardly "crystal-clear". The prime minister says the "military mission" will end. The MND says the "combat mission" will end. Dance, dance, dance. The 2008 Commons' resolution says the CF will be out of Kandahar by December, 2011--not out of Afstan.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/afstan-what-commons-resolutions-says.html
The government's lack of simple clarity on its most important defence and foreign policy matter is embarrassing and disgraceful.

At least it looks like the CF will avoid a media "Gotcha!" moment;
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/afstan-mission-planning-gotcha.html
and that--unless the government reverses course--no planning for a reduced, but still substantial, post-2011 CF mission will take place.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/keep-that-air-wing-at-kandahar-plus.html
In fact, for any such mission, time is running out to do the necessary assigning of units and personnel and arranging their training, important elements of which are done in the US, e.g. here
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/griffons-in-american-desert.html
and here.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/ied-training-for-army-in-texas.html

...I wonder how the Dutch are planning;
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/afstan-dutch-really-seem-like-going-in.html
and the Aussies say they won't take over from them in Uruzgan.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/john-faulkner-rules-out-sending-more-troops-to-war-in-afghanistan/story-e6frgczf-1225794716051
Want to bet on any other Euro filling the breach?

Mark
Ottawa
 
CDS to CanWest:  We're going by the March 2008 motion, but we can change if we're told:
“It’s still a year-and-a-half away; we’ve launched operations on less than that, but I can’t assume that”

KPRT commander to Canadian Press:  tone down expectations:
A high – ranking Canadian soldier who is assuming a key role in Afghanistan says Canadians need to temper their expectations ahead of a planned pullout for 2011.  Brig.-Gen. Steve Bowes has begun a one-year deployment as the International Security Assistance Force’s deputy chief of plans and projects. He says Canadians shouldn’t have delusions about quick success in Afghanistan.

Globe & Mail tea leaf contribution:
    Although the Conservatives have yet to make it clear, it’s expected hundreds of soldiers may need to remain behind to protect reconstruction and development. Retired major-general Lewis Mackenzie guesses up to 500 or 600 soldiers would stay in Afghanistan to keep watch over Canadian development projects or even to train local army and police.

    The Harper government has so far been reluctant to spell out how many soldiers are staying behind after the 2011 pullout. During the 2008 election campaign, the Prime Minister acknowledged that not every single soldier will return with the combat pullout, and it’s expected lingering pressure from the Obama administration to help out may lead to a contingent remaining.

    Military analysts speculated that Gen. Natynczyk’s decision to draw attention to withdrawal planning this week – his orders to make plans were actually given last summer – may have been an effort to force Ottawa to make clear its post-2011 intentions in Afghanistan.

Pulling it together a bit here and here.
 
Start of a Torch post:

President Obama nearing Afghan decision/Ospreys in Helmand
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/president-obama-nearing-afghan.html

Likely big consequences at Kandahar...

Mark
Ottawa
 
Related:

Afstan: Brits to reduce combat effort to win public support?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/afstan-brits-to-reduce-combat-effort-to.html

My word. Three stories...

No wonder another US combat brigade, likely Marines, seems wanted for Helmand. If the Brits go really dovish, it will effectively be the US doing almost all the fighting alone. Sad. What an "alliance".

Mark
Ottawa
 
Two at The Torch:

CDS serves a hard Afghan ball to the government
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/cds-serves-hard-one-to-government.html

The ball is now very firmly in their court. Time soon to end their dancing. Good on General Natynczyk, after having been much quieter that his predecessor, for coming through loud and clear...

Afghan ball still in Obama's court...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/afghan-ball-in-obamas-court.html

...awaiting return of General McChrystal's serve...

Mark
Ottawaw
 
Obamastan: serve returned, tiebreaker drags on.  Back to the drawing board (sort of) after eight meetings:

1) Obama said to want revised Afghanistan options
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091112/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan

President Barack Obama won't accept any of the Afghanistan war options before him without changes, administration officials say, amid an argument by his own ambassador in Kabul that a significant U.S. troop increase would only prop up a weak, corruption-tainted government.

Obama's ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, who is also a former commander in Afghanistan, is voicing strong dissent against sending more forces, according to an administration official. This puts him at odds with the current war commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who is seeking thousands more troops.

Eikenberry's misgivings center on a concern that bolstering the American presence in Afghanistan could make the country more reliant on the U.S., not less. He expressed them in forcefully worded cables to Washington just ahead of Obama's latest war meeting Wednesday.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss administration deliberations.

The developments underscore U.S. skepticism about the leadership of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, whose government has been dogged by corruption. The emerging administration message is that Obama will not do anything to lock in an open-ended U.S. commitment.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that she is concerned about Afghanistan's "corruption, lack of transparency, poor governance (and) absence of the rule of law."...

Yet in Wednesday's pivotal war council meeting, Obama wasn't satisfied with any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, one official said.

The president instead pushed for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government. In turn, that could change the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official.

Military officials said Obama has asked for a rewrite before and resisted what one official called a one-way highway toward commander McChrystal's recommendations for more troops. The sense that he was being rushed [?!? emphasis added] and railroaded has stiffened Obama's resolve to seek information and options beyond military planning, officials said, though a substantial troop increase is still likely.

The president is considering options that include adding 30,000 or more U.S. forces to take on the Taliban in key areas of Afghanistan and to buy time for the Afghan government's small and ill-equipped fighting forces to take over. The other three options on the table are ranges of troop increases, from a relatively small addition of forces to the roughly 40,000 that McChrystal prefers, according to military and other officials...

The options given to Obama will now be altered, although not overhauled...

2) U.S. Envoy Urges Caution on Forces for Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/us/politics/12policy.html?_r=1&hp

...
General Eikenberry sent his reservations to Washington in a cable last week, the officials said. In that same period, President Obama and his national security advisers have begun examining an option that would send relatively few troops to Afghanistan, about 10,000 to 15,000, with most designated as trainers for the Afghan security forces.

This low-end option was one of four alternatives under consideration by Mr. Obama and his war council at a meeting in the White House Situation Room on Wednesday afternoon. The other three options call for troop levels of around 20,000, 30,000 and 40,000, the three officials said.

Mr. Obama asked General Eikenberry about his concerns during the meeting on Wednesday, officials said, and raised questions about each of the four military options and how they might be tinkered with or changed. A central focus of Mr. Obama’s questions, officials said, was how long it would take to see results and be able to withdraw [emphasis added].

“He wants to know where the off-ramps are,” one official said...

The low-end option would essentially reject the more ambitious counterinsurgency strategy envisioned by General McChrystal, which calls for a large number of forces to protect the Afghan population, work on development projects and build up the country’s civil institutions.

It would largely deprive General McChrystal of the ability to send large numbers of American forces to the southern provinces [emphasis added] in Afghanistan where the Taliban control broad areas of territory. And it would limit the number of population centers the United States could secure, officials said...

The White House Afghanistan meeting lasted from 2:30 p.m. to 4:50 p.m., and was Mr. Obama’s eighth session in two months on the subject...

What a sieve.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Start of a (long) Torch post:

How deal with Afstan, AfPak, Indo/Pak, and al Qaeda/Update on strong horses
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-deal-with-afstan-afpak-indopak-and.html

Steve Coll is the author of Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001, probably the best contemporary history of those events. Last month he wrote serious think piece in Foreign Policy about the way ahead for US Afghan policy and related issues (thanks to Terry Glavin for bringing it to attention).

I think the first part on Afstan itself is very good. The second, on Pakistan (and India) much weaker and over-optimistic. The third, on al Qaeda, hits the mark. The fourth, on setting up a durable Afghan polity, makes a lot of sense. But how to achieve it?

Some excerpts...

Mark
Ottawa
 
Post-2011: MND MacKay is still dancing the Afghan fling--is still obfuscating:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/11/13/mackay-karzai-afghanistan.html

...
MacKay also addressed the future role of Canadian forces in Kandahar, saying the plan of Canada's top commander to withdraw all of the country's soldiers from Kandahar by 2011 was consistent with the government's own stance.

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk had told CBC News in an exclusive interview that the parliamentary motion on the Afghan mission specifies that it ends in July 2011, and that means the pullout of Canadian Forces.

CBC News had previously reported that Natynczyk ordered his commanders to start preparing plans to pull out of Afghanistan and return thousands of soldiers and billions of dollars' worth of equipment to Canada.

MacKay said Natynczyk's interpretation of Parliament's instructions to withdraw from Kandhar was "reflective of what everyone from the prime minister on down views as those instructions."

But MacKay was unclear on what direction the mission would take after 2011 and whether it would involve regions of the country outside of Kandahar.

"The military mission is changing. It is obviously transitioning at 2011 to emphasis on reconstruction, development, things that we are doing now but we'll be able to do more," he said.

"And clearly, there is discussion as to how this is going to take place. We're tasked with that now."

Last month, the prime minister's spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, told CBC News that Canadian soldiers would remain in Afghanistan past 2011, though he suggested a force much smaller than the 2,800-troop mission currently in Kandahar.

The Commons' resolution says out of Kandahar. Period. But not Afstan. What is the government going to propose, presumably for a Commons' vote, and when? This is getting seriously ridiculous.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Terry Glavin savages Globeite St. Rick Salutin (a live sheep):

Don't follow leaders. Watch the parking meters.
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/11/dont-follow-leaders-watch-parking.html

...
2. Who would write that the Taliban were grudgingly tolerated by Afghans, and it was because of the "honesty, integrity and good performance from all levels of government" the Taliban delivered? American white-nationalist and revisionist David Duke? British National Party leader and "anti-war" windbag Nick Griffin? Nope, neither. It was "left-wing" Canadian columnist Rick Salutin who wrote that, in the Globe and Mail today.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/think-remembrance-then-think-rebranding/article1361477/

The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles [check the video]...

More on St. Rick at the end of this Torch post.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/11/acid-test.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
Dithering into disaster.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/12/obama-us-troops-afghanistan-kilcullen

Barack Obama 'risks Suez-like disaster' in Afghanistan, says key adviser

Leading authority on counter-insurgency fears US is heading for 'irresponsible' fudge on extra troops

A key adviser to Nato forces warned today that Barack Obama risks a Suez-style debacle in Afghanistan if he fails to deploy enough extra troops and opts instead for a messy compromise.

David Kilcullen, one of the world's leading authorities on counter-insurgency and an adviser to the British government as well as the US state department, said Obama's delay in reaching a decision over extra troops had been "messy". He said it not only worried US allies but created uncertainty the Taliban could exploit.

Speaking in an interview with the Guardian, he compared the president to someone "pontificating" over whether to send enough firefighters into a burning building to put a fire out.

He was speaking as Obama left Washington for a nine-day trip to Asia without announcing a decision on troop numbers. The options being considered by the US have been narrowed down to four: sending 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000, the latter the figure requested by the Nato commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal. These would be on top of 68,000 US troops already deployed.

The deep divisions with the Obama administration were exposed yesterday by leaked diplomatic cables from the US ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, who urged Obama to ignore McChrystal's request unless the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, cleaned up his corrupt government.

Kilcullen expressed concern that Obama might deny McChrystal the 40,000 extra troops and split the difference between the four options, the kind of fudge common in domestic politics.

"Time is running out for us to make a decision. We can either put in enough troops to control the environment or we can credibly communicate our intention to leave. Either could work. Splitting the difference is not the way to go," Kilcullen said.

"It feels to me that all these options are dangerously close to the middle ground and we have to consider whether the middle ground is a good place to be. The middle ground is a good place on domestic issues, but not on strategy. You either commit to D-Day and invade the continent or you get Suez. Half-measures end up with Suez. Do it or not do it."

Kilcullen, though employed by the state department and various Nato governments, stressed he was speaking in a private capacity. A former Australian army officer, he is based in an office outside Washington and has served in various capacities in the US government, including as an adviser to General David Petraeus, the overall US commander. He is coy about the extent of his involvement but, apart from paid consultancies, his views are regularly sought by senior figures at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the administration.

He said it would be irresponsible to opt for a halfway house in which extra troops were sent in but not enough to secure Afghanistan, which seemed to be the way the administration was headed. He noted that Obama, in a speech to troops in Jacksonville, Florida, a fortnight ago, had said he would never lightly put them in harm's way.

"That's not the situation we are in. As an analogy, you have a building on fire, and it's got a bunch of firemen inside. There are not enough firemen to put it out. You have to send in more or you have to leave. It is not appropriate to stand outside pontificating about not taking lightly the responsibility of sending  firemen into harm's way. Either put in enough firemen to put the fire out or get out of the house. That is my analogy of where we are. Either of those approaches could potentially work."

He added: "If you have 40,000 troops it would be do-able. Anything less than 25,000 is throwing good money after bad."

Kilcullen supports the idea, pushed by British commanders, of protecting places where the population live rather than attempting to secure all territory.

There is media speculation in Washington that Obama may divert from his Asian trip to Kabul to confront Karzai. Kilcullen argues there is a need for Obama to exert leverage over the Afghan president by issuing a credible threat to pull out all US troops unless he cleans up corruption.

The White House line at present is that leaving is not an option. But Kilcullen said there was a vicious cycle that began with government corruption, creating the space for the Taliban to expand. There were two ways of getting leverage: one, of having enough troops in the country, and the other threatening to leave, as the US had done in Iraq.

"Our way out is to go to Karzai and say 'We are done here'. We will be leaving in two to five years. If you do not want to be left hanging from a lamppost, like Najibullah [the former Afghan president hanged in Kabul in 1996 when the Taliban took control], this is what you need to do. I think that would work," Kilcullen said.

He was critical of the delay in reaching a decision. "I do think, though, the policy process of this administration this year has been, shall we say, messy and this, the latest incident [the leaked diplomatic cables], underlines how messy it has been, and I think that is problematic.

"It sends a message of indecision and uncertainty which has an effect on allies, and has a huge effect on the British political debate and has huge impact on the Afghans."
 
MarkOttawa said:
The Commons' resolution says out of Kandahar. Period. But not Afstan. What is the government going to propose, presumably for a Commons' vote, and when? This is getting seriously ridiculous.
And a little something to add to everyone's head-shaking:  calls for almost $6M CAD in infrastructure work (honkin' maintenance hangar plus AFV maintenance shop) to be done @ KAF -
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/90186/post-890900#msg890900
 
Interesting article in Embassy magazine, asking why so few Canadians in DFAIT, CIDA and PCO can speak local languages, primarily Dari and Pashtu.

http://embassymag.ca/page/view/diplomats_afghanistan-11-11-2009

I'd expand the question space to the CF as well - since 2002, we've sent how many on language training for those two languages, compared to how many on Spanish, Korean or other languages so they can take a year at a foreign staff school?  "Selection and maintenance of the aim" would suggest that the success of the deployment to Afghanistan plays second fiddle to maintaining jammy goes for Majors...
 
From a former CDS, recently returned from Afstan:
http://cda-cdai.ca/cda/commentary/afghanistan/sleepwalk021109

...The media’s preoccupation with ramp ceremonies at the expense of analytical reporting of events in the field has distorted the picture, as has editorial pressure to focus on bad news while ignoring less newsworthy successes.

Canadians’ misunderstanding of the reality in Afghanistan can also be excused in that they have scarcely benefitted from a rational political debate about the situation. The silence from the Conservative Government on the issue has been no less than stunning, especially in regard to what will happen when the fast-approaching parliamentary deadline of July 2011 arrives. Strong convictions are held by many analysts (myself included) that the imposition in early 2008 of the 2011 deadline by Parliament was a serious mistake. For one thing it sent an unfortunate message, not just to our enemy, but to our 41 allies in the International Security Assistance Force, telling them that Canada is no longer interested in saving Afghanistan from a return to power by the Taliban. It is a dismaying message to the people of Afghanistan, who desperately want us to stay. It gives other nations whose own publics might be wavering an excuse for reducing or extracting their military forces, which inevitably imposes a heavy burden on the Americans, whose contribution already far exceeds that of its allies.

Moreover, following through with the mandate to withdraw our military contingent two years from now will largely wipe out the great credit that Canada and Canadians, civilian and military alike, have earned through our significant contribution to date. After years of being regarded as the bad boy of NATO, going back to 1968, Canada’s international stature has risen immensely because of our work in Afghanistan. It will be lost unless Canadians reverse the course.

But it is not simply a matter of reputation. Canadians must realize that our military presence in Afghanistan is not purely about aiding a nation that desperately needs our help, important as that may be. There is also a vital national interest at stake, about which most Canadians seem blissfully unaware...

...the federal government must reverse its misguided policy of silence on the question, at last showing real leadership instead of governing reactively in response to polls. Opposition parties must discard their crass partisanship in favour of the national interest, in such a way that Parliament can reverse the unfortunate 2011 deadline. The media must exercise their enormous influence to inform our citizens of the real issues, and Canadians themselves need to think beyond their own discomfort over casualties and the fond belief that this is someone else’s war.

It’s time for Canadians to wake up to the reality of Afghanistan.

General (Ret’d) Paul Manson is a former chief of defence staff (CDS) and past President of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute. He just returned from a five-day familiarization trip to Kabul and Kandahar, Afghanistan.

And from Brian Platt at The Canada-Afghanistan Blog:

Brave Women
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/2009/11/brave-women.html

Malalai Joya is now touring the Vancouver area with her new book, "A Woman Among Warlords". (I'm not going to link to it.) In general, she receives fawning press coverage. You'll often see her quoted as the "bravest woman in Afghanistan", which is apparently what the BBC dubbed her.

I went to a presentation of hers on Friday afternoon, and this is her message: Canadians troops need to leave now, the status of women is worse than ever, and the current government under Karzai is just as bad as the Taliban government was. There is no hope for the future until the United Nations and NATO leave Afghanistan alone. I'm not simplifying anything; that's all she says, over and over again.

So what is Joya's solution for Afghanistan after international soldiers leave? That's a good question!

In fact, at the presentation she was asked what would prevent the Taliban from taking over after a NATO/UN withdrawal. Instead of answering the question, she proceeded into a long speech about how terrible the situation is right now. So I put up my hand and demanded she answer the question. This led to a long, angry exchange between the two of us that lasted about 10 minutes, at which point I was told to shut up by the "antiwar" organizers of the event.

Considering that Malalai Joya, rabble.ca, stopwar.ca, and Simon & Schuster have a book to sell, we're going to be hearing a lot from the "bravest woman in Afghanistan" over the next little while...

Read on for the brave women.  Plus from Terry Glavin:

An Encounter With The Latest Poster Girl For Dizzy, Bourgeois Vanity.
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/11/encounter-with-latest-poster-girl-for.html

...
It is only in "the west" that she serves any purpose. She can be summoned as a sort of celebrity spokesmodel for that caste of the west's rich liberals who have a weird need to believe the lie that there is something "feminist" or "progressive" in the narcissistic, reactionary isolationism they have adopted as the defining mark of their own political virtue. It's the reason why so much effort is expended in building up a cult of celebrity around Joya. That's all that's going on here. It has absolutely nothing to do with what Afghan women want or need...

Mark
Ottawa
 
A comment by Primus at this Torch post:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/afghanistan-general-disarray.html

"Homage to a Government"
--Philip Larkin, 1969

Next year we are to bring all the soldiers home
For lack of money, and it is all right.
Places they guarded, or kept orderly,
We want the money for ourselves at home
Instead of working. And this is all right.

It's hard to say who wanted it to happen,
But now it's been decided nobody minds.
The places are a long way off, not here,
Which is all right, and from what we hear
The soldiers there only made trouble happen.
Next year we shall be easier in our minds.

Next year we shall be living in a country
That brought its soldiers home for lack of money.
The statues will be standing in the same
Tree-muffled squares, and look nearly the same.
Our children will not know it's a different country.
All we can hope to leave them now is money.

Mark
Ottawa
 
At the Torch:

Big Canadian operation at Kandahar ignored/Other CF Afstan news
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/big-canadian-operation-at-kandahar.html

So far only the Globe and Mail (good on them, but a rather, er, curt story) has seen fit to report this; most of our media only pretend to cover the CF at Kanadahar, and don't even use what is reported--see second story...

Mark
Ottawa
 
Back
Top