Replies to The Toronto Star and Haroon Siddiqui are wrong!

[Mike Bobbitt]

Please post all replies to the "The Toronto Star and Haroon Siddiqui are wrong!" Editorial here.

 

[scm77]

When I originally posted the article, I picked out a few errors that I saw.  I had no idea it was that bad.

Well done to "Ruxted Editor". 

 

[big bad john]

Lewis MacKenzie's reply to the Star article is below.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1147039809320&call_pageid=970599119419&source=somnia

Shift some troops from Afghan mission to Darfur


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion, May 7.

I have unsuccessfully argued for more than two years for NATO's intervention in Darfur to protect the victims of the continuing genocide. During this time, Canada's lead investigators, Ambassador Robert Fowler and Senator Roméo Dallaire assured us "things were getting better" and anyone suggesting Western intervention to solve an African problem was racist. The latter has now changed his mind and joined the Johnny-come-lately choir calling for NATO involvement.

Considering the above, I support Haroon Siddiqui's call for expanded Canadian involvement to protect the innocents in Darfur but unfortunately his column contains a number of serious factual errors that weaken his overall argument.

Our initial deployment to Afghanistan was not a peacemaking role in Kabul in 2001 as indicated by Siddiqui. The deployment took place in early 2002 to Kandahar as one-third of the combat power of a U.S. Airborne brigade tasked with eliminating remnants of the Taliban and AlQaeda. The unit, 3PPCLI, returned to Canada in April of the same year.

Canadian troops returned to Afghanistan in 2003 as part of the International Security Assistance Force responsible for security in and around Kabul. Siddiqui goes on to say that, "fortunately, most of the American troops are to depart (Afghanistan) soon." That is just not the case. The U.S. presence in Afghanistan is on its way from just under 20,000 troops to 16,000. The U.S. will continue to outnumber all the other 30 national contingents, including Canada's, combined.

Finally, what upset me enough to pen this letter was the comment that our involvement in Darfur "would help us return to our historic (peacekeeping) role." A myth and one the media and successive governments have perpetuated, presumably because the majority of Canadians like the idea of letting others do the heavy lifting and peacekeeping doesn't cost as much as a fighting force.

Peacekeeping was always a sideline activity for the Canadian Armed Forces. At the height of our reputation as the UN's lead nation in peacekeeping during the '60s, '70s and '80s, we had at any one time around 1,500 soldiers deployed under the UN flag. At the same time, we had up to 10,000 troops, some armed with nuclear weapons, stationed with NATO on the central front in Germany and France prepared to take on any aggression by the Soviet Union. Peacekeepers? Not!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis MacKenzie, Major -General (ret'd), Bracebridge, Ont.

 

[Dare]

Iraq "didn't attack anyone on 9/11" .. well, neither did Sudan. We're "warmongers" for wanting to attack Iraq after a broken cease fire agreement and many acts of war, but they are "peacekeepers" for wanted to attack Sudan after no threats against us. Are they advocating we "unilaterally invade" Sudan (with a coalition of 0) , like they nattered at us for "unilaterally invading" Iraq (with a coalition three dozen strong)? Do I see a UN mandate for this "illegal" war? Certainly would be less of a mandate than a broken cease fire agreement and about 16-18 resolutions. There's a genocide in Darfur? There was one in Iraq. Where's the international outcry at this "abhorant" "imperalistic" dialogue? We certainly can't attack the Janjaweed without a unanimous security council resolution (which has to explicitly outline the use of military force, btw.)

The hypocracy and the double standards in this article and parroted elsewhere are astounding. So is the idea that stopping this conflict is somehow going to be "traditional peacekeeping", or at least more "traditional" than our actions in Afghanistan (Gee, I could ding them as "traditionalists" now too).  I don't recall any Invade Sudan plans being tabled by the NDP during the last election. Yet here is "warmonger" Layton wanting to abandon Afghanistan to the wolves and take on a considerably more difficult task (on our own, no less), all the while having no problem with a diminished CAF.

So go ahead, supporters of OEF and OIF, use every epithet and distorted catch-phrase that's ever been used against you. I have. It feels good. Thumbs up Ruxted Group.

 

[Infanteer]

Right on the money Dare.

I wonder if these people ever bother to think what having the West knocking off another Islamic government will do for us in the Middle East (besides merely giving us a third theater of war to fight an insurgency in - all the jihadists from Egypt wouldn't have to go to Iraq anymore, they could just take the bus south).

 

[Centurian1985]

I am impressed that old Lewie The General wrote in... "the pen is mightier than the sword" in this case!

 

[Kat Stevens]

"Old Lewie?"  Funny, I met the General several times, including his visit to Vukovar in '92.  We never got past "Sir" and "Corporal".

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I wonder if Mr. Lewis (Not Jerry from Jerry's Kids) MacKenzie lurks here.  Sounding like one of us.

 

[KevinB]

Congrats to both the Ruxted Group and Dare.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I wonder if Mr. Lewis lurks here.  Sounding like one of us.

Mr. Lewis (Jerry) is a washed up, goofball comedian and a # 1 national hero of France (go figure). Major - General (ret'd) Lewis MacKenzie, is someone all together different, and yes, one of us (I'll guess, he does lurk here).

 

[pbi]

Good on General Lew for skewering Haroon Siddiqi's rubbish. I read the Siddiqi article on the weekend, but was away from my computer so I wasn't able to blast off a ranting reply.

No bloody wonder the average Canadian has such murky opinions about Afghanistan, if a supposedly well-informed Middle Eastern ""SME" like Siddiqi can spout utterly wrong trash and his editors don't even pick him up for factual error.

Here, once again, we see ourselves eating the results of  that terribly dishonest and ill-advised depiction of ourselves as the Happy Blue Peacekeeper Guys for so long. I think that, in the Army at least, we always knew that no good was going to come of this schizophrenic situation in which we trained and equipped for war, but sold an utterly different image of ourselves.

Cheers

 

[Cloud Cover]

I think that, in the Army at least, we always knew that no good was going to come of this schizophrenic situation in which we trained and equipped for war, but sold an utterly different image of ourselves.

I don't think I have heard the army's public positioning described in such diagnostic terms before, but that is so wonderfully close to describing not just the army, but so many other characteristics of the political, judicial, military and economic milieu that makes up Canada today.  It seems we lurch from one schizo situation to another.

 

[MarkOttawa]

I have sent the following letters to the Star on Darfur and Afstan.  None have been published.  It's not as if the Star has not been apprised of the facts.  It's simply that they don't care--not surprising given their obvious agenda.

1) May 10 (sent today, so we'll see)

Dr. Robert V. d'Amato, in his letter "Not worth life of a single Canadian" (May 10), writes that 'Canada should be enrolled in peacekeeping roles, not in American efforts at "nation creation." '  Dr d'Amato is obviously ignorant of the fact that the effort in Afghanistan is not "American".  Rather it is an international effort by over thirty countries, an effort that has recently been endorsed twice, both times unanimously, by the UN Security through Resolution 1659 (2006) and Resolution 1623 (2005).  In light of this UN mandate surely Canadians should support the effort enthusiastically.

2) May 5

Richard Gwyn, in his column "War on terror sideswipes Darfur" (May 5), in effect blames the US invasion of Iraq for the West's failure to intervene in Darfur.  He neglects to mention that the main barrier to any international intervention is the virtual certainty that China (which has important oil interests in Sudan--in this case it really is all about oil) and Russia would veto any resolution at the UN Security Council to authorize such action.

Surely Mr Gwyn, as a good Canadian, would not favour military action in Darfur without UN approval?

3) April 27

Your editorial, "End Darfur carnage" (April 27), is sadly lacking in reality.  Sudan has rejected any UN force for Darfur.  The UN's second-ranking peacekeeping official has told the Security Council that, if the Security Council nonetheless authorizes intervention, the force should not be under the UN (as was the case with the NATO force in Bosnia).  A senior US State Department official has said such an intervention, without Khartoum's agreement, would be equivalent to an invasion.  NATO has made it clear that it will not send ground forces to Darfur.

Moreover China--which has important oil interests in Sudan (yes, in this case it is all about oil)--and Russia will most certainly veto any attempt to have the Security Council mandate a non-UN intervention force.  After their experience with Iraq there is no way the US will "invade" Sudan on its own, or even with some small coalition, without such a mandate.

Your editorial urges Prime Minister Harper to "support this drive for stepped-up UN action".  Sadly, the US-led drive is going nowhere.  Many Canadians are still demanding, in our typically moralistic but impractical fashion, that we "do something".  What, pray tell, might that be that would achieve anything effective?

4) April 19

Bruce Campion-Smith, in his story "Mission [to Afghanistan] being re-evaluated", April 19, writes of "demands to ship troops to Sudan."  One supposes that anyone silly enough to make such a demand is ignorant of the fact that there are neither UN nor NATO missions in Darfur at this time, and  that there are unlikely to be any such missions for several months to come, if ever.  And also ignorant of the fact that the Sudanese government would not accept the presence of any sizeable force of Canadian troops.  Are we supposed to shoot our way in alone, unsupported by either the UN or NATO?

5) April 13

In his column on Afghanistan, "In-between world of war and no-war" (April 13), Haroon Siddiqui writes that:

"After repeatedly saying that the Canadian contingent in Kandahar is part of a "multinational, NATO-led, United Nations-backed mission," both the government and the opposition Liberals came clean that our soldiers are indeed under U.S. command, carrying out a U.S. mission."

Indeed they are, for the moment; but that U.S. mission has in fact full UN support.  Mr Siddiqui omits to mention that both U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom (under which our troops now are) and the NATO International Security Assistance Force (under which our troops will be as of this summmer) have the endorsement of the Security Council.

The following is from Security Council Resolution 1659 , Feb. 15, 2006, passed unanimously:

"The Security Council...

6.  ...welcomes the adoption by NATO of a revised Operational Plan allowing the continued expansion of the ISAF across Afghanistan, closer operational synergy with the Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)...

It is a pity Mr Siddiqui did not mention this resolution.  Doing so might have helped clarify matters for the Star's readers.

6) April 13

In his column on Afghanistan, "In-between world of war and no-war" (April 13), Haroon Siddiqui writes that:

"The Dutch held a long parliamentary debate and agreed to the deployment but under strict conditions and starting only in September.

The British, as is their wont, made little noise but delayed the deployment nonetheless, to sometime this summer."

Mr Siddiqui has his facts wrong.

The Dutch deployment of some 1200 troops to NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)--to serve under the Canadian-commanded multinational brigade--is scheduled to be complete by August 1--not starting in September as Mr Siddiqui claims. 

Moreover the Dutch already have 250 special forces personnel now serving at Kandahar under US Operation Enduring Freedom: 165 commandos and 85 flying three Chinook helicopters.  The helicopters in fact were bought from Canada and provide support to our troops at Kandahar, who have no helicopters of their own.

The British deployment has not been delayed, as Mr Siddiqui writes, until "sometime this summer".  Mr Siddiqui should have read Rosie DiManno's April 11 story in the Star in which she writes that "several hundred British troops are already in Helmand — the province to the west of Kandahar — it will be six weeks until the full complement of 3,000 is in place"---around the beginning of June.  In other words quite a few British soldiers are already there and the full complement will arrive before summer begins.  No delay there.

The UK troops will also serve under the Canadian-commanded multinational brigade.

Mr Siddiqui further writes:

"'What guarantees do we have that NATO will take over from the Americans?' asked the Bloc's Francine Lalonde. 'Is it a sure thing?' asked Claude Bachand. Neither got an answer."

Here is the answer, from a March 31 Reuters report:

"NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe General James Jones said he expected the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to cover three-quarters of the country by July...". 

That is to say that Canadian-commanded Regional Command (South), where the Canadians and British are, and where the Dutch will be, will transition from Enduring Freedom to ISAF at that time.  That may not be a guarantee but it seems pretty clear to me.

Finally, contrary to what Mr Siddiqui implies, both the NATO ISAF mission and US Operation Enduring Freedom are authorized under UN Security Council Resolution 1623 (2005), passed unanimously.

7) April 12

In your editorial, "Our Afghan resolve" (April 12), you say that the government should answer this question posed by NDP Leader Jack Layton during the take-note debate in the House of Commons:

"When will the current American-led counter-insurgency operation be replaced by a North Atlantic Treaty Organization command?"

The answer is very simple.  According to this/this article dated February 28 on the DND website:  "In the southern provinces, like the province of Kandahar this transition is scheduled for the summer of 2006."  So that is when our troops will shift from US Operation Enduring Freedom to the NATO International Security Assistance Force.

More specifically, on March 31 the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General James Jones, said he expected the transition to take place in July.

The Netherlands are committing--for two years--some 1,200 soldiers to Afghanistan; these are planned to join the Canadian-commanded Multi-National Brigade under NATO in August.

There was no need to ask the question as the answer is clear, except for the precise day/day of the transfer of command.  And I don't think that was what Mr Layton was asking about.  Perhaps Mr Layton might do a little more research.

8) April 9

Haroon Siddiqui writes in this column, "A misguided mission that is destined to fail" (April 9), that "Our 2,300 troops are part of a "multinational operation" in which we are the only nation, the Dutch and the British having delayed their deployments."

That is simply not true.  According to a March 27 BBC report: "Britain began an enlarged deployment to Afghanistan last month, sending an extra 3,300 troops to the south."  No delay there.  The same story also reports the death of a British soldier in in a road accident in southern Afghanistan.  His deployment, rather than being delayed, was sadly ended.

The Dutch deployment of some 1,200 soldiers, to serve under the NATO International Security Assistance Force with the Canadians and British in southern Afghanistan, is proceeding as scheduled with arrival planned for early August.  Meawhile there are already 450 Dutch military personnel based at Kandahar along with our forces--where the Dutch fly ex-Canadian Chinook helicopters in support of our soldiers.

The British, the Dutch and the Canadians are all now under US Operation Enduring Freedom until they transfer to NATO command this summer.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Brad Sallows]

It occurs to me from reading all of the above that one thing that must be done is, sadly, to ensure that the "conventional wisdom" on what is happening in Sudan is correctly represented now and in the future.  What I mean in particular is that the record be correctly maintained as to:

1) Who objected to intervention in Sudan, and when;
2) Who supported intervention in Sudan, and when; and
3) Who sat on the sidelines.

 

[Britney Spears]

Your list wikipedia as one of your sources?

Oddly, the connection between Sudan and Osama bin Laden brought the otherwise innocuous gum to public consciousness in 2001, as an urban legend arose that bin Laden owned a significant fraction of the gum arabic production in Sudan, and that therefore one should boycott products using it. As a result some food producers, for instance Snapple, renamed the ingredient "gum acacia" on their labels.

This story took on somewhat significant proportions, mostly thanks to an article in The Daily Telegraph a few days after the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, which echoed this claim. Eventually the US State Department issued a release stating that while Osama bin Laden had once had considerable holdings in Sudanese gum arabic production, he divested himself of these when he was expelled from Sudan in 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gum_arabic

 

[Cloud Cover]

Who would have thought that Sudan was a Marshmallow republic. I wonder if Layton is a campfire fanatic or rice crispie square addict?

 

[MarkOttawa]

You can't trust the NY Times any more either.  See this post at "The Torch":

"Afstan: NY Times admits it got it wrong about Canada"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/05/afstan-ny-times-admits-it-got-it-wrong.html

Crvena Zvezda update:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/43077/post-378460.html#msg378460

1) May 10 (sent today, so we'll see)

They just phoned and are considering the letter.  Wonder of wonders.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I read an interesting fact the other day which may be a clue as to why the US government *****-foots around Sudan. 

Apparently UBL owns (since 1997 and still does as of 2003) the Gum Arabic Company Limited, a firm in Sudan that supplies 80% of the world demand of gum arabic, giving him a monopoly on a key ingredient used in the production of soft drinks, "hard" gummy candies, and marshmallows. Also used to coat pills and in the production of newspaper ink. (sources: wikipedia and Modern Jihad, Tracing the Dollars Behind the Terror Networks by L. Napoleoni).  Several major corporations in the US are dependent on this company for the production of their products, namely firms in the soft drink industry, newspaper industry, and pharmaceutical industry.  If a foreign force invaded Sudan (as we are being urged to do by several factions), they could stop shipments of this product to North America!  Think of it!  Pop selling for 2.50 a litre.  Marshmallow hoarding.  Fights in the supermarkets over the last gummy candy...  >

Strange but true!

I knew it! It’s all about gum!!!

 

[SeaKingTacco]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/arabic.htm

Osama Bin Laden and Gum arabic is an urban legend.  That took me 3.5 minutes on Google.

Sudan may be mucked up, but not because of OBL's "super secret gum acacia factory"...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Now that that's been settled, let's put this train back on the track.