• 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

speech said:
This is Brennan's mother here, and I have just come across your conversation regarding my son

Hello, Brennan's Mother

I remember his letter, but vaguely. Perhaps you could provide a link to the thread in question?

I searched for "Brennan", but it did not show up.

By the way, resurrecting a long-dormant series of posts is a good way of ensuring that it is not "THE END".
 
Loachman said:
Hello, Brennan's Mother

I remember his letter, but vaguely. Perhaps you could provide a link to the thread in question?

I searched for "Brennan", but it did not show up.

By the way, resurrecting a long-dormant series of posts is a good way of ensuring that it is not "THE END".

Buried deep within this large thread of merged topics is this Life as a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan in Reply # 1182.  That is a link to Brennan's letter.
 
Thanks, George.

Brennan's Mother: I was in Kandahar when I read Brennan's letter the first time. My thought processes mirrored some of the other posters' comments.

I cannot speak for them, but I can explain my own, which probably are not too far off of theirs.

Firstly, I appreciate your concern as a parent - I am one too - and your need to speak out. I can see your point of view quite clearly.

Were you able to see this from ours, you would perhaps better understand what was said here back then. We are not just big meanies picking on your son.

The vast majority of us thoroughly believe in what we are doing there. Despite the cost in lives and health - and this cost is very real and near to us, as these are our friends and colleagues - and personal risk to ourselves, enthusiasm still remains extremely high.

We see a lot of uninformed opinion being expressed in the media, by people who have no clue what the situation is really like and what we are accomplishing, and have obviously never been there to see it for themselves. We see it again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and we have long since tired of it. Naturally, we treat this with the scorn that it deserves.

You saw that as the initial reaction here. My reaction was the same.

We saw no difference between his letter and hundreds of others. Had his age been mentioned, that reaction may not have occurred, or would at least have been markedly different. There is a huge difference between someone of Brennan's age and the adult numpties spewing nonsense, as there has been enough good journalism that they should know better. They have no excuse for their wilful ignorance.

We would not hold a young lad to the standard that we would expect of an adult, but there was nothing in his letter to indicate his age.

The second reaction came as we realized Brennan's age. For someone so young, it was very well written (if inaccurate, factually), so perhaps you can understand some of us being a little skeptical. My boys are about the same age, and I'd be surprised (and delighted) if one of them wrote something so eloquent. In this case, you may well take the disbelief and skepticism to be a significant compliment, even if it was not so intended. Even mistaking him for an adult should be a compliment.

Having just re-read his letter, I remain impressed by his writing ability, and by his concern. I hope that you take pride in those, as you should.
 
Re:  rumours of talks with Taliban attributed to unnamed sources....
Old Sweat said:
And for something completely different. This comment, reproduced under the fair comment provisions of the copyright act, is taken from:  http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2009/11/whispers-of-surrender-in-afgha/

Note that it is single source from a Saudi paper and is unconfirmed.

Whispers of Surrender in Afghanistan?
It comes to our attention that the MEMRI Blog highlights an article from the Saudi al-Watan in Arabic that - according to an Afghan source - the United States is talking to the Taliban seeking to trade control of 5 provinces in exchange for the cessation of attacks on US bases. MEMRI summarizes:

An Afghan source in Kabul reports that U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry is holding secret talks with Taliban elements headed by the movement's foreign minister, Ahmad Mutawakil, at a secret location in Kabul. According to the source, the U.S. has offered the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases ....

...we now have the counterpoint:  rumours of said talks with Taliban having broken down attributed to unnamed sources, via PAK media:
.... During the talks, the representatives of the US and the Karzai regime had their own preconditions, the most important being that the Taliban militia should accept Afghanistan’s new constitution and join the political mainstream under the existing system of governance.

The Americans also wanted the Ameer of the Afghhan Taliban Mullah Mohammad Omar to ditch Al-Qaeda and help arrest Osama bin Laden. The talks eventually failed due to the obstinacy of the Taliban representatives who wanted the withdrawal of the US-led allied forces from Afghanistan before initiating a formal dialogue with the US and the Karzai administration.

Move right along, nothing to see here....
 
U.S. set to hand Canada larger role in Afghanistan
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/hand+Canada+larger+role+Afghanistan/2279392/story.html

I don't think the story above by Matthew Fisher of Canwest News actually gives much more detail about new US forces to come under Canadian command at Kandahar than this story of his Nov. 19.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/hand+Canada+larger+role+Afghanistan/2279392/story.html
At the end of this Torch post, noting a similar CP piece then, I speculate on who some of those American troops might be:

New Canadian commander at Kandahar/More US troops to be under his command?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-canadian-commander-at-kandaharmore.html

It would seem almost certain that a fair number of the new troops President Obama is set to announce Dec. 1 will be coming to Kandahar--in a few months. I would think most of those would be under US command but some could also be included in our task force along with whatever American forces are assigned to it in the near future.

It is significant, and unusual, that the US is willing to put significant forces under direct Canadian operational control. Remember one US army battalion already has been part of our Task Force Kandahar battle group since late last summer (barely mentioned by most of our media and largely unacknowledged by our politicians)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/11/afstan-mnd-mackays-miserable-failure-to.html
and contributes about one-half of the task force's ground combat strength. The first such battalion, the 2-2 Ramrods, has been replaced by the 1-12 Infantry and shifted from Maywand to Zhari district.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Start of a Torchpost:

Afstan: Big Marine component of second Obama surge
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/afstan-big-marine-component-of-second.html

The US now has four Army ground brigades in the country with a primary combat role: the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, and 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, all in ISAF Regional Command East, plus the 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team in Kandahar, RC South (that last BCT was part of the first Obama surge in February this year}.

Also in RC South is the, very large, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade at Helmand (another part of the first Obama surge...).

It now looks very likely that 9,000 more Marines--a further expeditionary brigade--will be deployed to Helmand (the logical place for them) pretty soon as the first ground force element of the president's second surge to be announced Tuesday, Dec. 1...

Mark
Ottawa
 
Torch post, with background:

Afstan: 500 more British troops confirmed
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/11/afstan-500-more-british-troops.html

Total to be 9,500...

And from CP:

Canadians prepare for key role as NATO readies for last stand in Afghanistan
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hStbTnhs-SMMKMfxcdD7l0tGoQ8w

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — An ambitious push by the international community to set up an endgame in Afghanistan will hinge on its ability to break the Taliban insurgency around the country’s urban areas.

No urban area is more important than Kandahar city.

With U.S. President Barack Obama expected this week to announce a dramatic increase in the number of U.S .troops in Afghanistan, the Canadian contingent in Kandahar is already preparing the groundwork for the new strategy.

The bulk of the new troops — estimates range between 20,000 and 40,000 — will reportedly be deployed in southern Afghanistan, the Taliban’s centre of operations.

NATO commanders in the south have indicated they plan to establish a protective perimeter around Kandahar city, where 330 Canadian soldiers and civilians are in charge of security and development efforts.

For several weeks, Canadian troops have been updating intelligence on the city’s neighbourhoods and conducting disrupt operations in outlying areas...

Though Canada will likely be central in the push to improve security in Kandahar, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that was unlikely to influence plans to end the military mission in 2011.

"I don't sense any desire on the part of parliamentarians to do that," he told reporters at the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad and Tobago.

"We're right now examining how Canada can move forward with enhanced civilian presence, a focus on development and humanitarian aid."..

Mark
Ottawa
 
Two at The Torch:

Afstan: After a short absence, the CF return to Arghandab/Canadian Army general pulled out
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-after-short-absence-cf-return-to.html

What's the exit strategy for this rather sizeable NATO force...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/whats-exit-strategy-for-this-rather.html

...in a relatively small, overwhelmingly Muslim, country?  Perhaps the lack of combat and casualities permits the mission to drag on and on...

Mark
Ottawa
 
.... from Hansard 1 Dec 09:
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ):  Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period, the Minister of National Defence refused to answer a very simple question. I will ask him once again.  Given that NATO announced today that Canadian soldiers will be leaving Kandahar in early 2010 and going to a neighbouring district, can the Minister of National Defence confirm that this redeployment will not change the July 2011 end date of the mission for all Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan?

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, CPC):  Yes, I can confirm that, Mr. Speaker.
 
MND MacKay might have had the wit to point out that we are not leaving Kandahar province (or city), but rather CF Task Force Kandahar is expanding its AO back to Arghandab district with a second US Army battalion to come under the task force (which has one Canadian infantry battalion).

Predate: But dear Peter is never one to miss an opportunity to make simple military facts clear:

Afstan: MND MacKay's miserable failure to communicate
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/11/afstan-mnd-mackays-miserable-failure-to.html

Good flipping grief, one does sometime wonder about the fellow's grasp.

Mark
Ottawa
 
At The Torch:

Afstan: President Obama commits 30,000 new troops, all to arrive by mid-2010 (plus some allied contributions).../Update: Ouch!
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-president-obama-commits-30000.html

BruceR. at Flit, well-worth the read:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_12_01.html#006592

I've called Slate's Fred Kaplan "hysterical" before this. So this doesn't come as much of a surprise. Discussing the worst case in Afghanistan:

As with confronting most messes in life, the initial impulse is to flee. But if we simply pulled out, it's a near-certain bet that the Taliban would march into Kabul, and most other Afghan towns they'd care to, in a matter of weeks.

I don't know anyone who really believes that. A lot of people think the place would return to a state of civil war in a matter of weeks or not days. I've previously said the army would rapidly revert to its Northern Alliance roots and the ANP in places it was unpopular would likely dissolve. But it'd take a while until the Taliban were back in Kabul in any scenario...

Mark
Ottawa
 
At The Torch:

The new US Army battalion under Canadian command: The Torch got it right
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-us-army-battalion-under-canadian.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
In this blog....
MarkOttawa said:
Afstan: President Obama commits 30,000 new troops, all to arrive by mid-2010 (plus some allied contributions).../Update: Ouch!
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-president-obama-commits-30000.html
...there's a link to another discussion (which I've stolen to post here  ;D )
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/12/obamas-speech-at-west-point-about.html

I agree with the comment that it is a very interesting read, notwithstanding the emphasis on "waiting for the winter while the Taliban are huddled in their caves"  ::)

Of note, and which I glossed over in my initial watching of the speech and subsequent transcript reading:
Where Al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
This is interesting. Have many thoughts, but will wait a bit before discussing.
This will be a growing theme in US policy.

At a recent meeting in the US, a representative of the National Counter-terrorism Center stated that it's been directed that "eastern Africa is important, and Darfur is too difficult, so we're looking at Somalia."

The bells that went off for a few of us (way too few) were:
- "directed," not "assessed" - it's politics driving intelligence;
- "does the NCTC know where Darfur is?" -- it's not exactly 'east' within Africa
- "Somalia is an 'easy' target??"

So buckle your seatbelts kids...
 
More:

Afstan: Gates groks the importance of the second surge...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-gates-groks-importance-of-second.html

...and the perils of evacuating prematurely. From the text of his testimony...

Mark
Ottawa
 
Plus:

Afstan and allies: 1,000 more Italians, Turks won't fight (pity)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-and-allies-1000-more-italians.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
A way to make a success of President Obama's strategy--"Vietnamization" that works thinks BruceR. at Flit:

TLSR
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2009_12_04.html#006594

Kevin Drum asks "what's the plan?" in Afghanistan. I don't feel the same disconnect. I thought Obama, when read with Gen. McChrystal's previous staff work, doesn't leave much in the way of ambiguity, actually.

The key date is July 2011, and the deliverable the "beginning of the transfer of security responsibilities to Afghan forces. Not winning the war, or fixing the country, or something else equally ephemeral.

It's always been a key deliverable, long before the President's speech. During my tour, the phrase was "Transfer of Lead Security Responsibility," or TLSR. The question was always how far away it really was: it was always a real moving target of a deadline...

For more on "Vietnamization" see the end of this Torch post:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/12/afstan-way-to-make-success-of-president.html

Mark
Ottawa
 
Conference of Defence Associations' media round-up:

Debating the Obama Strategy
http://www.cdaforumcad.ca/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1259959119

Mark
Ottawa
 
From Canada's ROCK, Ben Rowswell:
“The [Provincial Reconstruction Team] is part of the international presence and there has been no discussion of the international presence coming to an end in 2011.”

From an anonymous “senior Canadian government official”:
“I couldn’t say firmly that we’re going to do training post-2011 …. There’s part of the training that can be in combat. There’s part of the training that’s not in combat.”

::)

More bitching and whining about lack of message clarity/continuity here.
 
Back
Top