Canadians seen as Americans in Afghanistan

[Bobbyoreo]

Didnt think the Dutch were out there anymore. Might be getting my missions turned around.

People have to remember that they are in a place where there is like 8-10 different armies patroling their back yards. Very easy to see how they think everyone is from the same place, that and the biggest player is the US...hard not to get pulled into that group!!!

 

[hhour48]

Your thinking of the Dutch out of Mazeri Sharif.

nope:
http://berlinsprouts.blogspot.com/2005/02/more-german-soldiers-to-hindukush.html

 

[loyalist]

It think all countries should take a page from the Honourable LGen Dallaire (Senate title+General's rank...wow) and ask themselves this question before sending their military off on operations:

Are we prepared to take casualties? Is the mission going to come first?

if the Bangladeshis had asked themselves this question before going to Rwanda, they wouldn't have embarrassed themsleves, Dallaire, their country or UNAMIR in the process. Canada was prepared (for the first time in awhile) to siffer casualties in Afghanistan. It's unfortunate, very unfortunate, and must be avoided, but, it does happen. If neccsary, I realise that I may become a casulaty one day. That what's people in uniform accept when they join up.

 

[GO!!!]

The issue was not numbers of coalition troops. The United States did not want any interference with the hunt for Bin Laden, and therefore made sure that UN troops stayed in Kabul, when they could have been in the countryside taking power from the war lords, something the US was not willing to do because it would require more man power. If there were in fact insufficient numbers of UN soldiers, this is directly due to the fact that they were stuck in Kabul, where they were ineffective. Why send more soldiers to an already stable area? If the United States had allowed an expanded mandate, I think we definitely would have seen larger numbers of troops. Remember, at this point in time, nations were virtually falling over each other to send troops to Afghanistan as 9/11 was fresh in everyone's minds.

Why you are absolutely right! It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that most of the contributing nations were not willing to spend any real coin or send more than a Company, and that they concentrated their forces right on top of the international media, in order to be seen as helping, without really doing anything.

As for the "no mandate" I guess my humping up and down Afghan mountains on Divisional operations was just to help us feel better about ourselves as a nation - right? What were we supposed to do? Try to kill every warlord/local leader/armed man in the country? Do you have any idea how big Afghanistan is?

The Soviets were unable to pacify it aggressively with about one hundred thousand men - so how do you justify your claim that a few thousand lightly armed Europeans could pull it off?

 

[Kilo_302]

.

Dude your an idiot

Resorting to personal attacks just reduces the strength of your arguments.

Throughout 2002-2003, almost all of the UNITED NATIONS troops were confined to Kabul and its immediate neighbourhood, while the US military retained control over the rest of the country in order to hunt down the remnants of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Because the United States was reluctant to commit a large number of ground troops to Afghanistan however, the physical control of the rural areas was entrusted for the most part to the local warlords. The result  was that, while a certain degree of security and normality was restored in the capital , the interim government under Mohammed Karzai that was installed under American auspices in December 2001 never succeeded in establishing its authority over the provinces, where the war lords and their militias regained control...It was only in late 2003 that began to encourage (ie allow) the UN troops to move out into the provinces, but by then, the opportunity had all but closed: the local militias were firmly in control of the plains and the valleys, the Taliban were making a comeback in the hills, the opium industry (largely suppressed by the Taliban )was once again the world's biggest, providing much of the rural income, and the so-called national government was a despised shadow with little authority beyond city limits. Chronic insecurity led to foreign and even local development agencies withdrawing from many rural areas, and national elections originally scheduled for summer 2004 were postponed. How did all go so wrong so fast?

Gwynne Dyer

"Future: Tense, The Coming World Order"  p 164- 165

To Go!!! There are numerous sources that concur with this view, both in print and online. Look them up.

 

[KevinB]

:

Okay so you beleive a book rather than THOSE OF US WHO WHERE THERE?

Edit (overly rude)

Since I am back in Afghanistan again - I will explain to you that the only military forces in the country conducting operations since the Russian occupations are.

  OEF - Coalition Forces (CFC-A, CJTF-180, CJTF-76 etc.)  This consists of a number of countries primarily US and UK, they are out hunting down and killing Taliban and Al-Q forces.

  ISAF (NATO's International Security Assistance Force) - Huddled around Kabul guarding the fifedom of the "Mayor of Kabul"

Thats it thats all -

Its not an argument - its a fact.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Kilo_302,

You are now arguing with 2 members who were THERE! [ we have others]
Please enlighten us of your experience over there so we can decide whether or not you are full of kife....

the clock is ticking on you.

 

[PPCLI MCpl]

Kilo_302,

Here are some other online resources:

While the UN is indeed involved in Afghanistan in relation to the Elections, Landmines, Refugees, and Economic Growth, they were not the "peacekeeping" force.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/index.asp

ISAF was, and still is a NATO mission.

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/index.html

And, like GO!!! and KevinB, I was in Afghanistan too.  And I sure didn't see any blue helmets around.

 

[Kilo_302]

ISAF was mandated by the UN. The United States blocked a motion to give it a larger mandate.

Please enlighten us of your experience over there so we can decide whether or not you are full of kife....

I am genuinely impressed that two of you have served in Afghanistan. That does not mean however, that anyone disagreeing with you on a certain aspect of operations in said nation must have also served there for their arguments to hold any validity. You can no doubt illuminate specific aspects of day to day operations, relations between forces of different nationality etc. These are things which admittedly I cannot speak about. And these are things which I have not been speaking about. I have merely suggested that the US may have erred by not using its full strength, and its wish to (understandably) control the hunt for Bin Laden and the Taliban. I think anyone is qualified to look at the current situation, read a little, do some research, examine the UN mandates for ISAF, and come to a conclusion.  Military operations are guided by political decisions, and I am arguing that US political decisions may have set back coalition operations in Afghanistan. I don't know why that is such a big deal. I seem to have offended some people on this board, for which I apologize, by rationally debating issues. In return I get rude posts full of meaningless rhetoric. Grow up.

 

[KevinB]

The US was attempting to get ISAF to either expand outside Kabul (something it strongly resisted until the countryside was more stable) or to get great coalition support.  However ISAF under a number of Commands was a toothless tiger.

  TO this day you will see a irrationally high number of "A" vehicles driving around Kabul - perhaps the worst/best example is the Swedish S Tank that rumbles up our cozy street at 0 Dark Thirty.  These nations have armoured contingents "guarding" a city - hardly the best environment for armour...

  The US tried to keep Canada in OEF rather than lose them to ISAF - and pushed to get the PRT rolling and Canadan back into the OEF fold.

Since I am typing on a DoS computer I wont offer my full thoughts on how the system attempted to fight a war on the cheap - but it is not the crux of the issue.

OEF went into Afghan to get rid of the Taliban and wipe out Al-Q.

ISAF was the warmer and fuzzier NATO follow on.  (Whippedy Fricken Doo if the UN annoited it with oil or what not)

A NUMBER of the NATO countries had issues with the US conduct of Iraq and where extremely UNHELPFUL while commanding or participating in ISAF to the conduct of OEF.

In short Kilo - I'm not too fond of your book knowledge, nor your illusions of inner workings of the game of Life (TM).  I can give you a LOT of examples of ISAF incompetance and complicity in illegal drug and arms trade - while OEF was putting lead on tgt...

  I can offer my experiences in watching the US ARG (USAID, USA PSYOPS, USA Corp Of Engineers, DEA etc.) attempt to bring stability -- and it is a lot more effective IMHO than our (Canadian) misplaced and woebegotten CIMIC.

 

 

[KevinB]

Secondly the reason you got rude comments from me was based on your blanket statement that where not factually correct.

  I considered your first responce a simply attempt to troll.  You seem in the subsequent postings to be articulate and educated, however keep in mind a lot of the recent academia won;t write a good word about US efforts even if it invovled "selective disclosure" or outright fabrication.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Secondly the reason you got rude comments from me was based on your blanket statement that where not factually correct.

   I considered your first responce a simply attempt to troll.   You seem in the subsequent postings to be articulate and educated, however keep in mind a lot of the recent academia won;t write a good word about US efforts even if it invovled "selective disclosure" or outright fabrication.

what r' you now? a lawyer?  ;D

 

[KevinB]

I view myself as an armed customer service professional -- where the customer is always wrong 

  The client is always right -- but our "customers" not so right...

 

[GO!!!]

Kilo,

Your problem is that you are only looking at the macro, and assuming that while we participated in the micro, we had no understanding of what was going on outside of our little world.

Most of us in the Infantry have an intimate understanding of what it means to have coalitions, NATO forces and task forces, the differing missions and tasks assigned to them and when. Why? Because when I go somewhere, I sure as hell want to know what is going on, hence the study. I am hardly alone, as KevB and PPCLI MCpl indicate.

ISAF was given a mandate by the UN, but this was hardly a requirement, it was more (IMHO) an attempt by the UN not to appear  completely irrelevant and powerless in policing the actions of the participating NATO nations. ISAF was going to happen anyway, whether or not the UN stumbled accross the right decision. As for the US stopping ISAF's exapanded mission, I would hazard that after such "expanded mandate" disasters such as Somalia, all of the Balkans, Rwanda etc, the US chose simply not to have the onerous and indicisive UN "leaders" control the mission over a series of years and decades a la Cyprus. The US wanted results, to show the world that 1) terrorists could be attacked at home and 2) that they were not invincible, and could be hurt - badly, and 3) that the bad guys could not attack the invariably "soft" UN troops, and using the resulting media attention to claim a victory against the US.

As the UN is not in the business of producing any type of result, their offer of a headquarters staff and a few poorly - trained conscripts from struggling nations was declined. This type of military has already failed in Afghanistan once.

As for the US not attacking Afghanistan with all of it's resources, you are probably right. There are a number of possible reasons for this though. 1) A modern military cannot simply throw it's entire weight into motion on  a moments notice. 2) to do so would be foolish, because the "tail" of a modern military machine is required to sustain those operations. 3) "Total War" is extraordinarily expensive 4) the type of enemy being fought in Afghanistan is not easily combatted by troops and machinery specifically designed for the European theatre, against a formed, hierarchial western - style military. While the sight of a tank division rumbling around Kandahar would undoubtedly warm the hearts of many, the fact of the matter is that long standing and effective national government, assisted by Light and Special Forces, will do alot more for bringing Afghanistan into the fold of developed nations.

The "insurgency" as it presently exists in Afghanistan is best fought with the practice of simply killing all of those who actively oppose us through military means, and sparing the local populace the trauma of a Fallujah style urban warfare event. If we can do this effectively, Timmy Taliban and Mullah Mike will simply dissapear when they go off to wage jihad against us - providing the best deterrent, and stimulating those who are active politically, in the democratic context. Saturating the nation with US troops would not be effective.

 

[geo]

Let's face it, the soviets tried the brute strength approach
that didn't work too well (last time I checked)

 

[Jed]

Roger that, GO !!!. Thanks for taking the time to give a logical, rational reply to KILO on how things really are in the big picture.

 

[Kilo_302]

I think the best solution if possible would have been to create a multinational force of mostly Muslim troops, thus avoiding the religious tensions. But I doubt that would be possible, seeing as there arent many Muslim nations that would or could send the required troops, especially as seen through the prism of Iraq.

 

[Chauhan]

Either way, we are foreigners occupying their country with white skin, and many will tar us all with the same brush. All westerners.

I'm joining the army this feb my cousins in the canadian army so was my 2nd cousin and im canadian but indian my nationality i really hate it with a passion wenever someone says that the armys white or its all white any comment like that leave that shit out of there will ya.

 

[Rory]

Manu has a point, a strong one infact. You think only whites serve in the American army, or any western army? I think not. Basically to avoid a flame war; I think that anyone who is not a insurgent, or rebel etc. Will be branded as a foreign intruder that will be fought with tenacity until they leave. I mean look at what happend in Russia when Lenin's Reds were fighting the Tsar's whites. When Britian and France sent troops to help the Tsar's regime out the whole country unified to expel these forces which were intended as aid to the Tsar and fight back the communists.

Basically my point being, unless your of their culture and belief; you will always be viewed as the enemy. We try to help but it will take longer than anyone really knows for sure to quell the insurgent 'corruption'. (if I can brand it as that for the sake of the discussion) Remember life never gets good until we get past the worst of it.

 

[GO!!!]

I think the best solution if possible would have been to create a multinational force of mostly Muslim troops, thus avoiding the religious tensions. But I doubt that would be possible, seeing as there arent many Muslim nations that would or could send the required troops, especially as seen through the prism of Iraq.

I would say that this is a bad idea for the following reasons.

1) The largest Muslim countries are dictatorships, (all Arab states) at the worst, or are decidedly uninterested in what the US is doing in Afghanistan. You must reconcile yourself with the fact that no - one outside of the wealthy west really concerns themselves with Afghanistan.

2) No muslim nation will send it's own soldiers to lower a US/NATO death toll.

3) You are confusing religion with culture. Those other countries may send muslims, but they will still be invaders, and attacked by the jihadis anyway. Lets not forget that muslims have slaughtered each other before too! (Iran/Iraq War)