CAN Senate: Better Comms on Mission, Let's Talk to Taliban

[The Bread Guy]

Highlights mine.....

How Are We Doing in Afghanistan?  Canadians Need to Know
Report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, 10 Jun 08
Report link - .pdf version of report

(....) Committee Recommendations:

1.    In order to better improve its communications strategy with the Canadian public regarding Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, the Committee recommends that:

a.    The Prime Minister of Canada speak regularly to Canadians nation-wide, through radio and television broadcasting, about Canada’s objectives in Kandahar and in Afghanistan as a whole; and

b.    The Government of Canada table in both Houses of Parliament a progress report on Canada’s mission in Afghanistan, including Canadian efforts in Kandahar, every six months reiterating goals, outlining benchmarks, progress and challenges. Further, in order for the Government of Canada to ensure that Canadians are informed of the findings within these reports, the Committee recommends that these reports be followed by a “fireside chat” by the Prime Minister through radio and television broadcasting. (see p. 73)

2.    To allow the Prime Minister to show his leadership and commitment regarding the Afghan mission, the Committee recommends that the Prime Minister chair the Cabinet Committee on Afghanistan. (see p. 68)

3.    Since the primary cause of Canadian Forces casualties is improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the Committee recommends that the Government of Canada procure 12 Expedient Route Opening Capability (EROC) systems (12 Husky, 12 Buffalo and 12 Cougar) in order to better protect our soldiers from the threat of IEDs. (see p. 12)

4.    To provide the deployed Canadian Forces troops in Afghanistan with a better intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and target acquisition capability, the Committee recommends that the announced interim purchase of Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) be accelerated to ensure their deployment in Afghanistan by September 2008. (see p. 13)

5.    To provide Canadian Forces in Afghanistan with better in-theatre mobility, the Committee recommends that the announced operational deployment of medium/heavy lift helicopters in Afghanistan be accelerated to September 2008. (see p. 14)

6.    In order to address the shortage of Canadian Forces soldiers and to preserve, for a longer period of time, the personal relationships developed among Canadian Forces soldiers on the ground and the local population, the Committee recommends that the Canadian Forces consider lengthening the normal operational rotation in Kandahar to a tour of nine to twelve months depending on the role of the personnel involved. (see p. 42)

7.    In order to increase the effectiveness of Afghan National Police training and mentoring in Kandahar, the Committee recommends that the Government of Canada send 50 RCMP officers and 150 civilian police officers from provinces and municipalities across Canada to Kandahar to be embedded in the Police Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams. (see p. 38)

8.    Additionally, the Committee recommends that the Government of Canada recruit and deploy up to 500 recently-retired police officers from across Canada to Kandahar province to further enhance Canada’s role in the training and mentoring of Afghan National Police in Kandahar. (see p. 95)

9.    In order to help improve morale and lower corruption within the Afghan National Police and encourage more Afghans to join and stay within the force, the Committee recommends that the Government of Canada financially assist the Government of Afghanistan to ensure that Afghan National Police officers have the appropriate equipment to fulfill their tasks and are paid a salary that is similar to that of Afghan National Army soldiers. (see p. 31)

10.                        Canada’s military cooperation with the local Afghan people is critically important to the success of our mission. The Committee therefore recommends that the Government of Canada increase the number of Canadian Forces Civil-Military Cooperation (CIMIC) teams deployed to Kandahar province. (see p. 41)

11.                        In order to encourage more Canadian non-military government employees and government contractors to deploy to Afghanistan and especially Kandahar, the Committee recommends that the Government of Canada raise the pay, bonuses and leave time for those who volunteer. (see p. 38)

12.                        In order to enable more development and governance efforts, the Committee recommends that the Government of Canada continue to apply pressure on its NATO allies to provide 4,000 additional combat troops to assist our troops in securing Kandahar province through mentoring the Afghan National Army and by providing force protection to civilians and Canadian Forces Civil-Military Cooperation (CIMIC) teams. (see p. 39)

13.                        Given the success of the Strategic Advisory Team’s experts in mentoring bureaucrats in Afghanistan’s federal government departments and agencies in Kabul, the Committee recommends that the Government of Canada form a similar Strategic Advisory Team to mentor Afghan officials at the provincial level in Kandahar. (see p. 39)

14.                        The Committee recommends that the results outlined in the Government of Canada’s semi-annual reports on Afghanistan be audited by the Auditor General.

15.                        The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada allow Canadian Forces soldiers and Canadian Government Officials operating in Kandahar to talk with members of the Taliban movement if communication encourages disarmament and/or ensures the security of development projects within the province. (see p. 97)

16.                        The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada play a more significant role in justice sector reform in Kandahar by assigning legal experts from Justice Canada to mentor local lawyers and judges in the province. (see p. 38)

Some honourable members have reservations with aspects of recommendations 2, 6, 12 and 15...."

- edited to add link to .pdf version of report -

 

[GAP]

Here is another of the Committee's observations....

Canada can't leave Afghanistan by deadline: senators
Mike Blanchfield, Canwest News Service
Article Link

OTTAWA - There is no way Canada will be able to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by 2011, Conservative and Liberal senators said Wednesday.

"I don't think all the troops will be out of there in 2011," said Conservative Senator Michael Meighen, of the Senate's national security and defence committee.

"I don't think there's any chance of being out of there in three years," added Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, the committee's chairman.

Both senators offered that assessment as their committee made public its latest report on progress in Afghanistan. In March, after much negotiation by the Conservative and Liberal parties, the House of Commons voted to extend the mission by two years to 2011, averting a federal election over the war.

Senate committee members recently returned from their third visit to the war-torn country, and though they said they saw more signs of progress than ever before, more work needs to be done.

Among its key recommendations was for NATO to add 4,000 new troops to the southern region around Kandahar. The 1,000 Canada was able to wrestle out of NATO is not adequate, the report said.

But the senators made clear that other NATO countries, or like-minded allies, should be tapped to do more because Canada can't contribute any more.

The senators also want the traditional six-month tours of duty extended to nine months or longer because soldiers rotate out of theatre just as they are starting to form alliances with Afghans and to make progress.

The report also recommends allowing the Canadian Forces to negotiate with the Taliban, although some Conservative senators on the committee dissented.

The committee is also calling on the government to find upwards of 500 serving and retired Canadian police officers to step up training efforts in Kandahar province.

The report called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to take a more active role in explaining the mission to Canadians, and to lay out benchmarks for success.

Kenny said that, if Canadians could be shown measurable progress, they would be more willing to allow their troops to stay longer in Afghanistan.

Earlier this week Afghan President Hamid Karzai said he expected Western troops will be needed in his country for another 10 years.
End of Article

 

[vonGarvin]

The senators also want the traditional six-month tours of duty extended to nine months or longer because soldiers rotate out of theatre just as they are starting to form alliances with Afghans and to make progress.

Though I agree that 6 months may be too short, for personal (selfish?) reasons, I hope that my tour isn't extended!

 

[Kirkhill]

Mortarman - I don't think it is just your timeline that the "Honourable Members" are out of touch with.  I wonder if they checked to find out if helos, UAVs and mine clearance suites are available on shorter timelines.  I understand that we are in competition with other countries with deeper pockets and bigger orders.

 

[McG]

I wonder if they checked to find out if helos, UAVs and mine clearance suites are available on shorter timelines. 

not to mention equipment like that described is useless if it surpasses our ability to crew it.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Though I agree that 6 months may be too short, for personal (selfish?) reasons, I hope that my tour isn't extended!

Depending on when you're going, it looks like you & your ROTO colleagues'll be OK (if Gov't even takes the committee's advice) - here's the committee's rationale (highlights mine):

(....)

"Nine to Twelve Months a Better Option

There are a number of reasons why rotations longer than six months, for certain personnel, is a good idea.

The first is obvious – nine to twelve months would give Canadian soldiers more time to understand Afghanistan and Afghans, likely increasing the success of the mission. The six-month rotation hinders Afghan stability, where knowledge of the local population is key to winning their support as well as distancing them from militants.

The second is that Canadian soldiers would be better off deploying to Afghanistan less frequently – and so would their families. Multiple tours are already routine because Canada is short of soldiers. Surely two tours of nine months, for example, would be less disruptive to families than three shorter tours. Soldiers should get bonuses for longer tours in the form of extra pay and longer leaves. It goes without saying that tours should not be extended for troops already in the field or for those who are currently in training for the next rotation, who were told (and whose family were told) they were going for six months.

The Committee is also aware of the challenges regarding replacements in situ - the way in which the Canadian Forces conduct the turnover of troops in the field - and the implications this may have on operations. The military would have to take into account the difficulties associated with changing troops in theatre at the height of insurgent activity when deciding on appropriate tour of duty extensions. In the end, the Committee believes that this challenge would be counterbalanced by potentially safer tours resulting from a good working relationship between our soldiers and the Kandahari population.

The Canadian military has a history of longer missions.  During the Korean War, year-long tours of duty were the norm. Even now, soldiers deployed to ISAF headquarters in Kabul serve nine months, and so do soldiers at headquarters in Kandahar.

The U.K. media have been reporting that British officials are considering extending their soldiers’ tour of duty to a year. Extending Canadian tours to nine months wouldn’t be popular with every soldier or every family. But, in the end, it could be less onerous for families, and it would increase Canada’s chances of making progress in Afghanistan."
(....)

 

[X-mo-1979]

I'm a soldier with a family.6 months,nine months,who cares.Soldier on.Grandfather did for 4 years without a phone call.
Why do soldiers expect to be treated so well?I think it's our biggest downfall.