Operation"cut and run", effect on Cdn.Military.

[time expired]

Has anyone given any consideration to the effects on the military of the government`s decision

to pullout of A-stan.

I would be concerned with procurement,recruiting,and the morale of the troops,plus the effect

upon the families who have lost loved ones in this conflict.

                                                        Regards

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm not satisfied we'll be pulling out to begin with.

Yes the government has said we will (end the combat mission IIRC), based on the motion passed in Parliment, spearheaded by the Opposition.

The Opposition parties have just completed a tour of Afghanistan and are now unsure as to whether they made the right decision and are saying we can't leave in 2011. (Gotta love the short memory politics happening here)

Another motion or deal with all sides could prevent the Conservatives from having to go through with the original item

The 'Combat Mission' may end in the sense it's happening now, however, I think it may just get renamed to provide protection for our projects, mentoring for the ANA & ANP, etc.

Active hunting may cease, as we currently know it and there may be a draw down of pers, but I don't think we're leaving.

Just my  :2c:

 

[The Bread Guy]

The 'Combat Mission' may end in the sense it's happening now, however, I think it may just get renamed to provide protection for our projects, mentoring for the ANA & ANP, etc.

Active hunting may cease, as we currently know it and there may be a draw down of pers, but I don't think we're leaving.

Agreed - I hope you're right, but I have a bit less confidence re:  the government changing its mind, given how long they've been at this.

 

[GAP]

The government is doing the right thing....if there is going to be change, let the Lieberals wear it. They've done nothing but lie and obfuscate for the past 4-5 years over this.

The NDP are just twits, but if the Lieberals don't end up wearing the changes, then it's just going to be thrown in the Cons faces come election time....

 

[daftandbarmy]

Truck loads of bitterly disappointed senior officers desperate for glory and shiny bravery medals to speed along their thrusting careers?  ;D

 

[SeanNewman]

I'm not satisfied we'll be pulling out to begin with.

I have no problem admitting that you're right sometimes 

The problem though is that public tide is no absurdly against staying there.  If you track the comments at the bottom of CBC, the "approve" and "disapprove" comments have shifted on the messages like "Get out of there now" from 50/50 to 75/25 and now with the latest fatality they're about 90% "approve" for quitting.

Sadly, and political party that said they wanted to stay, even if they had iron clad proof that we were doing great things over there and the Taliban were about to surrender, would be committing political suicide.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I have no problem admitting that you're right sometimes 

The problem though is that public tide is no absurdly against staying there.  If you track the comments at the bottom of CBC, the "approve" and "disapprove" comments have shifted on the messages like "Get out of there now" from 50/50 to 75/25 and now with the latest fatality they're about 90% "approve" for quitting.

Because the CBC has a liberal/left-wing bias it stands to reason that the people who read their articles and make comment on articles will have similar views. Therefore, comments like the ones you mention have to be taken with a grain of salt and may not represent the views of many (most?) Canadians.

 

[SeanNewman]

Retired AF Guy,

Granted the CBC is left leaning, but it was left leaning years ago when their results were 50/50 on stay or go.

The CBC was left leaning then as it is now 90/10, so the survey sample can be considered relatively sterile and consistent.

 

[ModlrMike]

Retired AF Guy,

Granted the CBC is left leaning, but it was left leaning years ago when their results were 50/50 on stay or go.

The CBC was left leaning then as it is now 90/10, so the survey sample can be considered relatively sterile and consistent.

Or the results could simply indicate that the sentiment on the Left is now 90/10; not necessarily reflective of the rest of the political/social spectrum.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Or the results could simply indicate that the sentiment on the Left is now 90/10; not necessarily reflective of the rest of the political/social spectrum.

I haven't done any counting, but it appears to me that most folks who comment on Afghanistan stories are the ones who oppose it for one reason or another.  It may just reflect the fact that many who oppose the war are more willing to type it out - I concur that comments on stories = full range of public opinion.

 

[SeanNewman]

There are posts that support us being there too, they just get swamped with "disagree" and don't get anywhere near the votes the "we need to get out now" posts do, so if you sort by "agree" you'll never see posts stating we should be there unless you go to page 50.

 

[tomahawk6]

The same people that oppose the war in Afghanistan also believe that the taliban are freedom fighters. :

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I have no problem admitting that you're right sometimes 

The problem though is that public tide is no absurdly against staying there.  If you track the comments at the bottom of CBC, the "approve" and "disapprove" comments have shifted on the messages like "Get out of there now" from 50/50 to 75/25 and now with the latest fatality they're about 90% "approve" for quitting.

Sadly, and political party that said they wanted to stay, even if they had iron clad proof that we were doing great things over there and the Taliban were about to surrender, would be committing political suicide.

CBC has roughly, and this is a generous guesstimate, a viewership and following of roughly 8% of the total population that has a radio or TV. Their say and their viewer's say equates to, I don't know, about dick all of the real population of this country.

CBC has long ago stopped being the voice of what we want or how we do it. You might as well cite what Hugo Chavez has to say about our being in Afghanistan. CBC is a non starter and can't be trusted for the true pulse of the Canadian public.

Everyone wants to hear what Mom says, but Mom is senile and incoherent. Not to be trusted with lit matches or the opinion of the common person in Canada.

As far as political haymaking, the Opposition simply has to admit the situation has changed in the last 18 months and their reassessment shows our presence in certain areas must remain.

Simple combat estimates and reassessments of political goals are the only thing needed to extend the mission.

Oh, and non partisan political will with an end game of satisfying the Canadian public and our true expectations, and not the furtherance of some myth to provide election fodder for a political party.

This is there for the Opposition to mismanage at their own peril.

 

[shamu]

CBC has roughly, and this is a generous guesstimate, a viewership and following of roughly 8% of the total population that has a radio or TV. Their say and their viewer's say equates to, I don't know, about dick all of the real population of this country.

Interesting unfactoid. Conrad Black is out of jail (for now), maybe he can help you can get a job at one of his old newspapers

Supposed "liberal media bias" of the CBC misses the point. 

If Canadians spent more time researching the situation, as to why this mission is ethically sound and why it is necessary to be part of the UN sanctioned, NATO led mission in Afghanistan, we'd be in a better place.

But most common news seen by average people are soldiers dying .  Rather than being reminded of millions of people getting education, healthcare, rights and why they are there in the first place; terrorism, we get 15 second stories or a scrolling text on bottom of a screen.

We have the misinformed; people the "911 truth"/"we're there for oil" crowd.  That's 1/3 Canadians that believe the conspiracy theory (which Skeptic Magasine and Popular Mechanics bust quite handily).  Blame dope and "internet journalism".

And you have a portion of people polarized from the Conservative Party and/or the Liberal Party who, for a variety of reasons, will never agree on their policies on principal alone.  But it was a Liberal led government that committed us to Afghanistan and Conservatives who inherited the mission.  Personally, I think the deadline coincides with the stretched out resources and manning of the CF and to delay the debate.  My feeling is we will extend because the two major parties want to stay.

You are correct in when you say non-partisan political will with an end game will make this mission a success.  In that, a plan to engage Canadians in communicating the facts of the mission beyond 15 second news sound bites.  With a little more information pushed out to the average, sane, reasonable, level headed adult Canadian, the majority should agree with the mission.

 

[George Wallace]

Supposed "liberal media bias" of the CBC misses the point. 

If Canadians spent more time researching the situation, as to why this mission is ethically sound and why it is necessary to be part of the UN sanctioned, NATO led mission in Afghanistan, we'd be in a better place.

I think you are missing the point.  Yes Canadians should spend more time researching the situation, but it is even more so a responsibility of the MSM to do a thorough job in their research and reporting.  If the MSM fails on their part, then the people who do research are left with their (MSMs) mistakes.  If the MSM is producing garbage, that is what people are going to find when they JFGI.  Yes, Goggle can be your friend, but it can by your enemy too, if the MSM is posting faulty/incorrect/biased info.

 

[The Bread Guy]

As far as political haymaking, the Opposition simply has to admit the situation has changed in the last 18 months and their reassessment shows our presence in certain areas must remain.

I think we've already heard that from Iggy ....

.... Mr. Ignatieff is suggesting that Canadians remain for another three years after the military mission ends in July, 2011, but cautions that any commitment cannot be open ended.

Training a cadre of officers is a mission that Canadians would be good at, he said, noting that some of the best military trainers are in this country. It would also be a mission that does not involve combat.

Rather, Canadians could train Afghans to defend themselves, which was an aim of the original mission.

“What were we there for in the beginning?” he asked. “It was to enable Afghans to defend themselves … to be self-sufficient. We are not there yet. … There is more work to be done.” ....

....from Bob Rae....

.... “The door is open to a serious discussion in Canada, and then
between Canada and NATO, about what the future looks like,”
Mr. Rae said earlier this week as committee members paid a
visit to Kandahar Airfield. “Increasing the capacity both of the
Afghan police, the Afghan military and frankly the Afghan judicial
system has been very much part of what we've been doing and
I think it's something that needs to continue." ....

.... and from Senator Hugh Segal:

None of us can know what the final phase in Afghanistan will bring in terms of a constructive framework for stability and self-government, but it is clear that Canadian military experience, perspective, local sensitivity and highly-trained capacities need to be a vital part of that final phase ....

So some minds on the other side are changed.....

This is there for the Opposition to mismanage at their own peril.

Jack?  Gilles?  Anything to add?  Hello?

Simple combat estimates and reassessments of political goals are the only thing needed to extend the mission.

Oh, and non partisan political will with an end game of satisfying the Canadian public and our true expectations, and not the furtherance of some myth to provide election fodder for a political party.

I have to agree with what E.R. Campbell said here in September:

.... Most countries, including Australia, Britain, Canada and America are growing more and more tired of this war. Their populations do not understand the nature of COIN and they are not inclined to learn. Who can blame them, in the middle of a financial meltdown? Europe has never liked this operation and it is, across the board, casualty averse ....

Given that, so far, it sounds like the PM's pretty keen on maintaining the "get the military outta Dodge by 2011" course.

As for this....

You are correct in when you say non-partisan political will with an end game will make this mission a success.  In that, a plan to engage Canadians in communicating the facts of the mission beyond 15 second news sound bites.  With a little more information pushed out to the average, sane, reasonable, level headed adult Canadian, the majority should agree with the mission.

There have been calls for years, here and elsewhere on blogosphere, for better communication by those we elected about the mission, and better engagement of the Canadian public.  Anything is better than nothing, but IMHO, it's too late to change public minds now.

Unless the Government has an epiphany about the value of the mission continuing, saying, as RG suggested, "hey, the situation now is not like the situation earlier, so we have to respond differently," we're (the military component, anyway) outta there.  I'll even bet a donation to a charity halping Canada's war wounded, or families of the fallen, that there will be no government "about face" on this.

 

[Redeye]

The same people that oppose the war in Afghanistan also believe that the taliban are freedom fighters. :

That couldn't be further from the truth.  Maybe some deluded folks do - but I think they're rare.  Among though who I've talked to, they all consider the Taliban to be a negative influence and an evil force, but one of many in the world, and one that ultimately in their estimate isn't likely to be rooted out.  I've met many people whose views on the matter differ from mine but none come to mind that had much positive sentiment for the Taliban.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

I think we've already heard that from Iggy ....
....from Bob Rae....
.... and from Senator Hugh Segal:
So some minds on the other side are changed.....

Jack?  Gilles?  Anything to add?  Hello?

I have to agree with what E.R. Campbell said here in September:
Given that, so far, it sounds like the PM's pretty keen on maintaining the "get the military outta Dodge by 2011" course.

As for this....There have been calls for years, here and elsewhere on blogosphere, for better communication by those we elected about the mission, and better engagement of the Canadian public.  Anything is better than nothing, but IMHO, it's too late to change public minds now.

Unless the Government has an epiphany about the value of the mission continuing, saying, as RG suggested, "hey, the situation now is not like the situation earlier, so we have to respond differently," we're (the military component, anyway) outta there.  I'll even bet a donation to a charity helping Canada's war wounded, or families of the fallen, that there will be no government "about face" on this.

Good posting.  I agree completely that the CF will not remain post 2011 in any significant numbers.  There simply is no domestic upside for the govt to extend us.  On the negative side of the political calculus, $22 billion and counting, 151 dead CF members, and minimal public support for the mission.  Internationally the Dutch withdrawal from Afghanistan may well have cascading effects on other European countries.  It has certainly made it easier for Canada to withdraw and also shown our current minority government what can happen if they re-open debate on extending the mission.  I doubt that even President Obama cares one way or the other since he is quite keen to commence the U.S. drawdown himself.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Internationally the Dutch withdrawal from Afghanistan may well have cascading effects on other European countries.  It has certainly made it easier for Canada to withdraw and also shown our current minority government what can happen if they re-open debate on extending the mission.

One analyst takes it a step further in a recent think tank report:

.... The Taliban seem to see themselves as gradually gaining the upper hand in the military confrontation and as having so far successfully counteracted the military surge chosen in Washington. They probably see the incipient Dutch and Canadian withdrawals as the first signs that the enemy front is disintegrating ....

So far, I haven't seen this kind of messaging in the Taliban statements I've tracked, but time will tell.

 

[stealthylizard]

The government also hasn't done a very good job in selling the conflict in Afghanistan to Canadians.  I'm always being asked, after people find out I just returned from there, "Why are we there anyways?"  I can come up with a couple dozen reasons, but just the fact that people ask that, shows they don't know WHY we are involved, or WHAT we are actually doing.  It does make it fun dispelling the whole "war for a pipeline" myth though.