Therefore ... we should stay in Afghanistan

[Edward Campbell]

There is the hope that by 2011 the ANA wont need as many foreign troops and they should be able to handle the heavy lifting.

There is also hope that the tooth fairy will leave me a million bucks because I floss regularly. One is a well founded as the other.

 

[Greymatters]

Im thinking you might want to put your money on the tooth fairy...

 

[The Bread Guy]

Gives them another two years in which they can try to convince the country to continue with the mission?

Or to convince enough of the other parties in the House of Commons to keep the government going...

 

[Flip]

The 'logic' escapes me. If a precipitous withdrawal is unacceptable in 2009 why is it OK in 2011?

Since there will be an election before 2011 but not neccesarily before 2009 we can "back burner" this for now.
If Harper wins a majority, He'll do as he wants.(amid howls of protest)
If Harper loses, 2011 is better than before 2011.

It isn't honest - It's politics  ;D

 

[MarkOttawa]

I saw Prime Minister Harper speak at the CDA meeting.  Besides the 2011 Kandahar (and Kandahar only) mission end date, which a subsequent Parliament can easily change under the apparent new derogation of the authority to deploy military forces from the Crown (Governor-in-Council, i.e. Cabinet, maybe these days PM) to Parliament (quite a constitutional innovation), the prime minister also said the government would

...leave operational decisions to commanders on the ground.

This appears an attempt to find common ground with the Liberal position, as I have put it--but still leave room for "combat":
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/afstan-good-sense-in-toronto-star.html

M. Dion also said it would be up to the Canadian military actually to devise the detailed rules of engagement to implement the operational constraints [no "pro-active" combat] the Liberals would place on the mission.

But the government's new position would put an impossible burden on commanders on the ground.  It is up to the government to define what type of operations the CF should conduct in the broad sense that is meant by both the PM and M. Dion.  It is not up to the CF to make those types of "operational decisions"; hell, a commander might think it a good military ("operational") move to strike into Pakistan.

Mr Harper is trying, in order to win a political victory, to muddy the fundamental responsibilities for the conduct of military operations between the civil and military authorities.  I do not like, nor respect, that approach.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[QV]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080221/afghan_motion_080221/20080221?hub=TopStories


Nice to read good comments for a change. (posted at end of article for those that don't know)

 

[The Bread Guy]

Isn't it sad that when I see so much POSITIVE material about the gov't in MSM, I get nervous..... 

 

[The Bread Guy]

....  the government's new position would put an impossible burden on commanders on the ground.  It is up to the government to define what type of operations the CF should conduct in the broad sense that is meant by both the PM and M. Dion.  It is not up to the CF to make those types of "operational decisions"; hell, a commander might think it a good military ("operational") move to strike into Pakistan.  Mr Harper is trying, in order to win a political victory, to muddy the fundamental responsibilities for the conduct of military operations between the civil and military authorities. 

Interesting that this doesn't follow the traditional "politicians determine & communicate WHAT they want done, soldiers determine and implement HOW it's to be done".  Certainly opens the door for criticism to the effect that the government wants to win in Parliament, but disavow any mistakes or problems if they arise.

BTW, has anyone seen the wording of said new, "improved" resolution yet?  Also, it's interesting that while the PM's news release is up all over (on both gov't and party web pages), the speech text isn't yet.  I await both the res'n and the speech with interest....

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, copied from the CBC web site, is the revised Conservative motion (21 Feb 08) with my proposed changes in yellow:

( strike-through = delete existing text and underline = insert new text)

----------​

Government Motion

That, whereas,

this House recognizes the important contribution and sacrifice of Canadian Forces and Canadian civilian personnel as part of the UN mandated, NATO-led mission deployed in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan;

this House believes that Canada must remain committed to the people of Afghanistan beyond February 2009;

this House takes note that in February 2002, the government took a decision to deploy 850 troops to Kandahar to join the international coalition that went to Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and that this deployment lasted for six months at which time the troops rotated out of Afghanistan and returned home;

this House takes note that in February 2003 the government took a decision that Canada would commit 2000 troops and lead for one year, starting in the summer of 2003, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul and at the end of the one-year commitment, Canada's 2000 troop commitment was reduced to a 750-person reconnaissance unit as Canada's NATO ally, Turkey, rotated into Kabul to replace Canada as the lead nation of the ISAF mission;

this House takes note that in August 2005, Canada assumed responsibility of the Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar province which included roughly 300 Canadian Forces personnel;

this House takes note that the government took a decision to commit a combat Battle Group of roughly 1200 troops to Kandahar for a period of one year, from February 2006 to February 2007;

this House takes note that in January 2006, the government participated in the London Conference on Afghanistan which resulted in the signing of the Afghanistan Compact which set out benchmarks and timelines until the end of 2010 for improving the security, the governance and the economic and social development of Afghanistan;

this House takes note that in May 2006, Parliament supported the government's two year extension of Canada's deployment of diplomatic, development, civilian police and military personnel in Afghanistan and the provision of funding and equipment for this extension;

this House welcomes the Report of the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan, chaired by the Honourable John Manley, and recognizes the important contribution its members have made;

this House takes note that it has long been a guiding principle of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan that all three components of a comprehensive government strategy - defence, diplomacy and development - must reinforce each other and that the government must strike a balance between these components to be most effective;

this House takes note that the ultimate aim of Canadian policy is to leave Afghanistan to Afghans, in a country that is better governed, more peaceful and more secure and to create the necessary space and conditions to allow the Afghans themselves to achieve a political solution to the conflict; and

this House takes note that in order to achieve that aim, it is essential to assist the people of Afghanistan to have properly trained, equipped and paid members of the four pillars of their security apparatus: the army, the police, the judicial system and the corrections system;

therefore,

it is the opinion of this House that Canada should continue a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to July 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan, and that the military mission shall consist of:

(a) training the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can expeditiously take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole;

(b) providing security for the training, reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar; and

(c) the continuation of Canada's responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team;

And it is the opinion of this House that, consistent with this mandate, this extension of Canada's military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:

(a) NATO secure a battle group of approximately 1000 to rotate into Kandahar (operational no later than February 2009);

(b) to better ensure the safety and effectiveness of the Canadian contingent, the government secure medium helicopter lift capacity and high performance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance before February 2009; and

(c) the government of Canada notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011 review its commitments to Afghanistan, under the Afghanistan Compact,  at the end of 2010, and, as of that date, will aim to have begun the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011;

And it is the opinion of this House that the government of Canada, together with our allies and the government of Afghanistan, must set firm targets and timelines for the training, equipping and paying of the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, the members of the judicial system and the members of the correctional system;

And it is the opinion of this House that Canada's contribution to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan should:

(a) be revamped and increased to strike a better balance between our military efforts and our development efforts in Afghanistan;

(b) focus on our traditional strengths as a nation, particularly through the development of sound judicial and correctional systems and strong political institutions on the ground in Afghanistan and the pursuit of a greater role for Canada in addressing the chronic fresh water shortages in the country;

(c) address the crippling issue of the narco-economy that consistently undermines progress in Afghanistan, through the pursuit of solutions that do not further alienate the goodwill of the local population; and

(d) be held to a greater level of accountability and scrutiny so that the Canadian people can be sure that our development contributions are being spent effectively in Afghanistan;

And it is the opinion of this House that Canada should assert a stronger and more disciplined diplomatic position regarding Afghanistan and the regional players, including support for the naming of a special envoy to the region who could both ensure greater coherence in all diplomatic initiatives in the region and also press for greater coordination amongst our partners in the UN in the pursuit of common diplomatic goals in the region;

And it is the opinion of this House that the Government should provide the public with franker and more frequent and more detailed reportsing on events in Afghanistan, offering more assessments of Canada's role and giving greater emphasis to the diplomatic and reconstruction efforts as well as those of the military and, for greater clarity, the Government should table in Parliament detailed reports on the progress of the mission in Afghanistan on a quarterly basis;

And it is the opinion of this House that the House of Commons should strike a special Parliamentary committee on Afghanistan which would meet regularly with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and National Defence and other senior officials and that the House should authorize travel by the special committee to Afghanistan and the surrounding region so that the special committee can make frequent recommendations on the conduct and progress of our efforts in Afghanistan;

And it is the opinion of this House that the special Parliamentary Committee on Afghanistan should review the laws and procedures governing the use of operational and national security exceptions for the withholding of information from Parliament, the Courts and the Canadian people with those responsible for administering those laws and procedures, to ensure that Canadians are being provided with ample information on the conduct and progress of the mission;

And it is the opinion of this House that with respect to the transfer of Afghan detainees to Afghan authorities, the Government must:

(a) commit to meeting the highest NATO and international standards with respect to protecting the rights of detainees, transferring only when it believes it can do so in keeping with Canada's international obligations;

(b) pursue a NATO-wide solution to the question of detainees through diplomatic efforts that are rooted in the core Canadian values of respect for human rights and the dignity of all people; and

(c) commit to a policy of greater transparency with respect to its policy on the taking of and transferring of detainees including a commitment to report on the results of reviews or inspections of Afghan prisons undertaken by Canadian officials;

And it is the opinion of this House that the government must commit to improved interdepartmental coordination to achieve greater cross-government coherence and coordination of the government's domestic management of our commitment to Afghanistan, including the creation of a full-time task force which is responsible directly to the Prime Minister to lead these efforts.

----------​

I’m about 95% sure that these changes would be unacceptable because I’m about 96% sure that Flip is correct: the Conservative motion was crafted for immediate, partisan political advantage, not to do what’s right for Canada.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, is columnist Don Martin’s take:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=324930

Afghan plan carved in paper
Comment: Liberal, Tory motions are virtual photocopies

Don Martin, National Post  Published: Friday, February 22, 2008

Combat soldiers patrolling outside the Kandahar military base should shake their helmets in disbelief at the motion sickness rocking Parliament Hill in their name.

While they're racing to drop another engine pack into a stalled tank within rifle range of Taliban hideouts, scrambling to hitch a ride in another nation's helicopters over oft-mined roads, or wondering if that banged-up Toyota they're approaching is booby-trapped, Canadian politicians are twisting their deadly mission into political origami.

Last week's four-page Liberal motion on conditionally extending the Afghanistan mission was countered by a four-page Conservative motion released Thursday that would pass for a photocopy.

There is no measure of mission success or failure in either motion. Only a firm 2011 date for a retreat to somewhere else is up for discussion. The vote is five weeks worth of political chattering away.

It's a bit odd how a usually-defiant Stephen Harper allowed Liberal nemesis Stéphane Dion to ghostwrite his most pressing foreign affairs decision, but that either proves how determined his government is to avoid an Afghanistan referendum wrapped in an election or how laughably far the Liberals have caved to spoon with the Conservative position.

A journalistic mob seized the Conservative motion upon release, frantically checking it word-for-word against the Liberal proposal to spot real or imaginary differences. At most there are three potATEo-versus-potATo variances of little significance.

• Soldiers will down weapons and start packing on either Feb. 1, 2011 (Liberals) or Canada Day that year (Conservatives).

• The six-month process of knocking down tents and loading up equipment will be completed and Canada's spot on the Kandahar Air Field rendered an empty patch of dirt and gravel by either July (Liberals) or December, 2011 (Conservatives).

• The troops and their equipment will either be relocated north into safer provinces or out of the country entirely by the end of 2011. That next destination requires someone to interpret a clause stating there shall be a "redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar" which neglects to clarify if that means all of Afghanistan.

Yet you can parse every syllable in the motion and it's clear nothing will change on the ground for the next three years.

The motions affirm a drift that is already happening -- forcing the military to realign its priorities into training the Afghan army and de-corrupting the police while putting a renewed emphasis on relief and reconstruction. Soldiers can still initiate a fight or return fire upon command from their officers.

What makes both motions worth less than the paper they're printed on is that four years represents an eternity in military deployments and minority government lifespans. By the time Canada starts its sixth year in Kandahar in 2011, one of the two national parties could have a majority mandate for the prime minister to do as he or she damn well pleases in military matters.

If that person is still Stephen Harper, we will not be leaving on schedule in 2011.

This Prime Minister clearly relishes being a middle-power leader with the capacity to unleash "peace-enforcement missions" at will -- a country no longer ignored as the nation of blue helmets with binoculars for weaponry.

We'll get a grounding in reality in a speech from feisty Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier this morning, who promises to ensure the soldiers' perspective isn't lost in all the clause-by-clause wrangling over motions.

After that, it's over to politicians for weeks of chatter before MPs approve the extension and send Mr. Harper off to a NATO summit with an ultimatum that another 1,000 troops be delivered to Kandahar next year or Canada will immediately abandon its post.

That demand will undoubtedly be nailed down long before the Prime Minister boards the plane. Mr. Harper may already have a deal from his recent global telethon of allies, opting to withhold that announcement for the international stage because it will look better in Conservative campaign television commercials.

But any soldier-boosting commitment will ensure Canada remains in Kandahar for another 1,500 days, give or take a week under the Conservatives' withdrawal timetable.

For the defence contractor crowd, who provided a standing ovation backdrop for Mr. Harper's announcement yesterday, a longer mission means another hefty batch of equipment orders are on their way.

But at the current rate of casualties, a motion that leaves our Kandahar commitment not even half completed means 100 Canadian soldiers and a million family tears are yet to fall.

National Post

I have to agree. Harper ”clearly relishes being a middle-power leader with the capacity to unleash "peace-enforcement missions" at will -- a country no longer ignored as the nation of blue helmets with binoculars for weaponry.” All Canadians should ‘relish’ that – heaven knows it’s a much needed about turn from the Liberals’ policies that remain rooted in Trudeau’s silly, sophomoric, sad little 1970 foreign policy failure. But: we have to be for something, something substantial – just having the ‘capacity,’ just having the attention of the world is insufficient.

There are good and valid reasons for being a leader amongst the middle powers – we have vital national interests to promote and protect and we have values we want to share with the world. We need to do more than just hide in Festung Amerika and revel in our moral superiority. If we want to ‘make a difference’ then we must establish and enunciate principled policies and back them up with credible military muscle. Prime Minister Harper, while better for Canada than any of the immediately available alternatives, seems unwilling or unable to do what needs doing. Perhaps, one can hope, he actually has some ideas and ideals that will appear, magically, when (if) he gets a majority government. Perhaps, one fears, he is only an able political tactician for whom power is the only end. 

 

[Flip]

Perhaps, one can hope, he actually has some ideas and ideals that will appear, magically, when (if) he gets a majority government.

I have seen some evidence of this.  An early example was to amend the "Tainted blood"
settlement to include many who were excluded by Alan Rock's crass lawyering.
Alan Rock offended my "Canadian values" right down to my socks with that one.

  Perhaps, one fears, he is only an able political tactician for whom power is the only end. 

As opposed to the Liberals sense of entitlement? Their rejection and opposition
to anything they don't bring into the house. The liberals numerous reversals on the mission itself?
Edward, I understand your perhaps cynical fears, but I do not share them.

Stephen Harper is going to have to do some wrong stuff to get the right stuff done.
Especially, given the overall tone of the house........ ;D

 

[tomahawk6]

Odd but just last fall the government was discussing pulling out in 09. Now its 2011 that Canada will depart Afghanistan a 2 year extension. Harper is trying to buy time for events on the ground, as well as for his future as PM. Neither party wants an election right now and so an accommodation on policy will occur. This will innoculate the conservatives from Liberal sniping and is a much better situation than in the US where the two parties are at odds over the war.

The mission of NATO in Afghanistan should be that of a shield while the ANA and AP gain strength and competence. As this occurs NATO can step back into a support/mentoring role. The US role will remain unchanged at least until OBL and his minions are confirmed kills.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is the Canadian Press’ take on the CDS’ views:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080222.whillier0222/BNStory/National/home

Hillier asks for strong parliamentary support for Afghan mission

The Canadian Press

February 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM EST

OTTAWA — Parliament should give "overwhelming" support to an extension of Canada's mission in Afghanistan or risk the wrath of an enemy that strikes at weakness, the country's top soldier said Friday.

A clear and robust mandate with political and public support back home is least the troops can expect if they are to remain in Afghanistan, said General Rick Hillier, chief of the defence staff.

He said the soldiers don't ask for much, "but they do ask, from the point of view of those who would accept the risk and the sacrifice of that mission, that they be given clarity of purpose in what they are asked to do and they get that clarity of purpose as soon as we can possibly give it to them as a country."

The troops need to know that they have a mission that is militarily viable, Gen. Hillier told a defence conference on Friday.

He warned that the Taliban are watching the political debate in Canada for signs of weakness.

"Because we are, in the eyes of the Taliban, in a window of extreme vulnerability," he said. "And the longer we go without that clarity, with the issue in doubt, the more the Taliban will target us as a perceived weak link.

"I'm not going to stand here and tell you that the suicide bombings of this past week have been related to the debate back here in Canada. But I also cannot stand here and say that they are not.

"And, certainly, there is a perception out there that the Taliban will try to take advantage of the debate back here and try to prevent a cohesive mission and will indeed attempt to attack our Canadian Forces in Kandahar."

Gen. Hillier said his troops need a robust mandate that goes beyond self-defence and allows them to go out and find insurgents.

In the 1990s in Bosnia, he said, UN troops were limited to self-defence and often couldn't intervene against ethnic cleansing. If self-defence is the first priority, then why not just stay home?

He said Canadian battalions in Bosnia were hamstrung by political caveats, the same kind of limitations some nations have imposed on their troops in Afghanistan, much to Ottawa's displeasure.

Being able to take the fight to the Taliban has led to successes, he said. In recent months, the Canadians hunted down six senior Taliban leaders who masterminded many attacks against coalition forces.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper agreed with the Liberal Opposition Thursday to set a firm 2011 end date on Canada's military mission in volatile Kandahar.

A new motion proposed on Canada's future in Afghanistan by Harper's Conservative minority says the mission will focus on training and reconstruction after next February.

But it also says extension of the mission is conditional on the Canadian Forces getting helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles and on NATO finding a battle group of about 1,000 troops to "rotate" into Kandahar by next February.

The Liberal proposal was clear in spelling out that another NATO country needs to replace Canada in the lead combat role in Kandahar, allowing Canadian troops to focus on reconstruction and training. The new government motion is not so specific and could mean only that NATO must send more troops to reinforce the Canadian contingent.

"If you're going to Kandahar, you have to have the flexibility . . . to conduct the necessary operations to do the mission," Gen. Hillier said after his speech.

"And we believe in the motion that that flexibility is there."

Sometimes I wonder about the spin the CP puts on stories. The CP reports says that: ”[The] new motion ... says the mission will focus on training and reconstruction after next February” but the motion (quoted, in full, in an earlier post) says:

... the military mission shall consist of:

(a) training the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can expeditiously take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole;

(b) providing security for reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar; and

(c) the continuation of Canada's responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team;

The new motion clearly spells out training, security and reconstruction, in that order, but the CP reporter managed to miss that.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Two posts at The Torch on General Hillier's February 22 speech to the Conference of Defence Associations:

Misrepresenting Hillier
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/misrepresenting-hillier.html

CDS General Hillier, Afghanistan and Parliament
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/cds-hillier-afstan-and-parliament.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Rifleman62]

The repeaters from CTV, G & M (same corporate ownership), as well as their comrades from the Toronto Star and CBC attended the same halls of schooling as their liberal buddies at The New York Times.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, caught my eye:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080225.wafghan25/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

U.S. military urges Canada to maintain combat role
Training, reconstruction, fighting are linked, leader of U.S. Central Command says

OMAR EL AKKAD

From Monday's Globe and Mail
February 25, 2008 at 3:44 AM EST

OTTAWA — A top U.S. military official cautioned yesterday, on the eve of a parliamentary debate on Canada's military mission to Afghanistan, that soldiers cannot separate the jobs of fighting Taliban insurgents, training Afghan soldiers and reconstructing the country.

Admiral William Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command and the officer responsible for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, would not say whether Canada's target of withdrawing from Afghanistan by 2011 was realistic. He did caution that the Taliban "pays close attention" to what happens in countries that supply troops to Afghanistan and gain confidence "if they perceive there's little commitment - or it's words and not a lot of action to back it up."

"And that's certainly not the mindset we want to leave them with," Adm. Fallon said on the CTV program Question Period, echoing controversial comments made by Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier last week, who warned that the Taliban might step up attacks in Afghanistan to sway the political debate in Canada.

"We want them to have the idea that we're committed to helping this country of Afghanistan to achieve its potential," Adm. Fallon said.

"We have a large number of our forces there and we know that we need help from our good friends and allies, the Canadians being in the lead in the south, and so we're looking for commitment to be with us to help the Afghan people and to put this country in a position of stability and security."

Debate begins in the House of Commons today on a government motion to extend the military mission to southern Afghanistan from 2009 to 2011 and to change the focus of the mission from combat to training Afghan forces and providing security for reconstruction. The Liberals say that means an end to offensive operations to attack the Taliban, though military commanders would decide what fighting is needed.

MPs are expected to vote on the motion before Prime Minister Stephen Harper attends a NATO summit in Bucharest, at which he is seeking 1,000 more NATO troops to assist Canada in Kandahar province as well as helicopters and unmanned drones. Adm. Fallon would not comment specifically on the political debate in Canada over the Afghan mission, but disagreed with the idea that the combat portion is separable from the rest of the mission.

"You can't say, 'We're going to do this and not this.' You need a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to this problem," he said. Afghanistan needs everything from good governance to roads and electricity, Adm. Fallon said, but work in those areas needs security and stability.

Late last week, General Hillier called on Parliament to show its support "overwhelmingly" to soldiers in Afghanistan, and implied that waffling on the issue could cost Canadian lives.

"I'm not going to stand here and tell you that the suicide bombings of this past week have been related to the debate back here in Canada. But I also cannot stand here and say that they are not," he said.

Some opposition MPs suggested that the general overstepped his bounds by making demands of elected officials.

"It is Parliament's determination to decide whether or not Canada engages in combat or war, and then the military follows the decisions of Parliament," NDP Leader Jack Layton said on Question Period yesterday. "That's fundamental in a democracy and I think Canadians hold that value very tenaciously."

Adm. Fallon said he's looking to get the Afghanistan mission done quickly, but done right.

"My view is I'm not looking for a lifetime of employment certainly from my perspective and the forces that we have committed here. We're looking to try to get this mission done as quickly as we can, but to do it right, be effective in providing security and stability, and again I'm not looking for a 30-year commitment here.''

Adm. Fallon also presented a U.S. perspective on the war in Afghanistan - the perspective of a military official charged with overseeing two post-9/11 conflicts.

He conceded that suicide bombings are up in Afghanistan, "but then again I look at Iraq and what I've been dealing with over there, and there's no comparison in the magnitude of the number of events and so forth."

Maybe no one read the motion to Adm. Fallon but it says:

therefore,

it is the opinion of this House that Canada should continue a military presence in Kandahar beyond February 2009, to July 2011, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on Afghanistan, and that the military mission shall consist of:

(a) training the Afghan National Security Forces so that they can expeditiously take increasing responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole;

(b) providing security for reconstruction and development efforts in Kandahar; and

(c) the continuation of Canada's responsibility for the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team;

Now that doesn’t exactly say that it’s our job to clear the Taliban out of Kandahar but it says we have to take the fight to the Taliban while we help get the Afghans, themselves, ready and able to do te job, as they should – as they must if they are ever going to win this war for themselves.

Canadian politicians should heed the wisdom in Adm. Fallon’s caution re: how the al Qaeda, the Taliban and their fellow travellers follow our debates. Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton ought to know that they are encouraging the Taliban, etc to take the offensive, against Canadian troops, because the Taliban and hangers on perceive a weakness and want to exploit it.

 

[The Bread Guy]

A bit more from CTV's folks, shared with usual disclaimer:

U.S. admiral echoes Gen. Hillier's concerns
Updated Sun. Feb. 24 2008 3:54 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The Canadian debate over the Afghanistan mission can boost confidence among the Taliban, says a top US military leader.

Admiral William Fallon, chief of the U.S. Central Command, told CTV's Question Period that he sees political debate as a normal part of the process.

But he seemed to agree with Gen. Rick Hillier that the insurgents can use any perceived lack of commitment to gain strength.

"They're very clever, and they take advantage of information technology, both in gathering information and trying to use that for their purposes," Fallon said. "If they perceive that there's little commitment, or it's words and not a lot of action to back it up, they're going to gain confidence."

On Friday, Hillier said that the Taliban are watching the political debate in Canada about the mission for signs of weakness.

With a parliamentary debate beginning on Monday, NDP leader Jack Layton echoed his earlier disagreement with Hillier's remarks. He said engaging in debate over the future of military engagement is a sign of strength.

"To suggest that it's a sign of weakness to have a democratic debate I think is seriously misguided," Layton told Question Period on Sunday.

"It is Parliament's determination to decide whether or not Canada engages in combat or war and then the military follows the decisions of Parliament."

Fallon said that the forces in Afghanistan will do whatever it takes to let insurgents know that they're committed to helping the country.

"If they sense that this commitment is real and it's genuine and it's deep, then their life's going to be a little harder," he said.

Layton also said that using NATO as principal instrument for the mission and its focus on counter-insurgency is not working.

"Violence against civilians has gone up," he said, "and then we've seen poppy production up, we've seen crime and corruption rising in the country."

NDP deputy leader and finance critic Thomas Mulcair re-emphasized his party's opposition to the mission on Sunday.

"I profoundly disagree with the mission as does every member of the caucus of the NDP," Mulcair said. "It's our official position that we should not be involved in that combat mission."

Liberal industry critic Scott Brison told Question Period that he feels Parliament has a responsibility to seek common ground, but emphasized his party's focus on a more balanced approach.

"It has to shift from what has been an almost exclusively military and combat role to more of a development and social and economic development role," Brison said.

One of those areas of common ground between the Liberals and Conservatives is the 2011 end date.

Fallon admitted he didn't know how realistic the Manley Report's end date for Canada's involvement is, but he's "not looking for a 30-year commitment."

"We're looking to get this mission done as quickly as we can, but to do it right, be effective, and providing safety and security," he said.

A group of senior U.S. diplomats completed a nine-month study, similar to the Manley Report, called the Afghanistan Study Group. Ambassador Gary Matthews, one of the report's principal contributors, told Question Period that support for the mission in Washington has been strong on both the Democrat and Republican sides. But it will require a doubling of the allied effort to succeed.

"It's an effort and a commitment where we can prevail, but it's going to take more resources, more burden-sharing and a commitment,"

Matthews said. "There's a very strong consensus that we need to double our efforts in Afghanistan, and together with our allies of course, including critical ones such as Canada."

Fallon does not foresee a time when it becomes an exclusively U.S.-led mission due to the country's high number of military commitments, but he does see the Afghan people taking control of the effort.

"What I'd like to see is a day in which the Afghans take over ... responsibility for security in this country," he said. "That's what we're really striving to do."

It'll be interesting to see who will be the first politican to say out loud to reporters:  "When we say 'train' the Afghan troops, we don't mean 'fight alongside them'."

 

[Reccesoldier]

It'll be interesting to see who will be the first politican to say out loud to reporters:  "When we say 'train' the Afghan troops, we don't mean 'fight alongside them'."

The Russians tried that route (train but not fight with) and it was a failure.  The Afgan's rightly or wrongly (I think wrongly) expect those that are there to help and train them to share the burden of combat with them.  It is a respect thing and I think it has cultural roots.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is the latest from today’s Globe and Mail:

Afghan mission most important debate facing nation: MacKay
Liberals support revised Conservative motion on Afghanistan as debate begins in House of Commons on extension of Canada's military mission to 2011

BRODIE FENLON

Globe and Mail Update
February 25, 2008 at 2:06 PM EST

History will judge Canada harshly if it abandons the people of Afghanistan and its international allies before the fragile country can stand on its own, Defence Minister Peter MacKay told the House of Commons Wednesday as he opened debate on a government motion to extend the military mission in Kandahar from 2009 to 2011.

“This is perhaps the most important debate facing our Parliament and our nation today,” Mr. MacKay said. “It has important broad implications for Canadians, Afghans and for the world.”

Mr. MacKay said Canada's efforts have won it the respect of the Afghan people, the international community and its allies, and to leave now would be an abandonment of all three. He warned that Afghanistan could again become a “breeding ground for terrorists” if the insurgency succeeded.

“At times, as a country, we have to take a position and assert ourselves. We have to assert ourselves by sharing our fundamental values and interests by expressing those and by defending them,” Mr. MacKay said.

“We can't assume that others are going to do the difficult work for us. If we truly believe in this difficult mission, it's not words that count,” he said.

“Now is the time, and Afghanistan needs us. Stabilizing Afghanistan is a noble and essential cause,” he said, citing several examples of progress since the overthrow of the Taliban: 6,000 kilometres of new roads, hundreds of teachers trained, two million female Afghan students, reduced infant and mortality rates, and greater democracy.

The Conservative motion, which was rewritten to bridge differences with the Opposition Liberals, would change the focus of the mission from combat to training Afghan forces and providing security for reconstruction. The Liberals say that means an end to offensive operations to attack the Taliban, though military commanders would decide what fighting is needed.

The confidence motion, which could trigger an election if it fails, sets 2011 as a firm end-date for the mission and makes Canada's continued involvement contingent on a NATO commitment of 1,000 more troops to assist Canada in Kandahar province, as well as helicopters and unmanned drones.

Mr. MacKay began his remarks by expressing “appreciation and respect” for opposition MPs who sought to reach a compromise on the mission's future, and he acknowledged specifically Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and deputy leader Michael Ignatieff.

Mr. Dion said he supports the new motion – all but ensuring its passage – although he has specific questions he wants debated, including why the government has settled on 1,000 as the required number of troop reinforcements and how long the government is prepared to wait for NATO to meet the demand.

However, the Liberal Leader applauded the government for “taking the reasonable steps it has to find the common ground between our two positions.”

“I agree with the Prime Minister that what we have now is neither a Conservative motion nor a Liberal motion – it is a Canadian motion,” Mr. Dion said.

“We are pleased to see that the government has accepted the fundamental principles that the Liberal Party has been guided by: A change to the mission, an end to the mission, a greater commitment to development and diplomacy, and greater transparency and accountability by the government.”

Bloc Québécois MP Vivian Barbot said the civilian and military loss of life in Afghanistan has been high and Canada has paid its dues as a part of the NATO effort.

“Never has there been such a loss of human life since the Korean War,” she said. “The time has come to pass the baton to someone else.”

The parliamentary debate comes just a day after a top U.S. military official cautioned that soldiers cannot separate the jobs of fighting Taliban insurgents, training Afghan soldiers and reconstructing the country.

Admiral William Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command and the officer responsible for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, would not say whether Canada's target of withdrawing from Afghanistan by 2011 was realistic. He did caution that the Taliban “pays close attention” to what happens in countries that supply troops to Afghanistan and gain confidence “if they perceive there's little commitment – or it's words and not a lot of action to back it up.”

“And that's certainly not the mindset we want to leave them with,” Adm. Fallon said on the CTV program Question Period, echoing controversial comments made by Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier last week, who warned that the Taliban might step up attacks in Afghanistan to sway the political debate in Canada.

“We want them to have the idea that we're committed to helping this country of Afghanistan to achieve its potential,” Adm. Fallon said.

“We have a large number of our forces there and we know that we need help from our good friends and allies, the Canadians being in the lead in the south, and so we're looking for commitment to be with us to help the Afghan people and to put this country in a position of stability and security.”

Adm. Fallon would not comment specifically on the political debate in Canada over the Afghan mission, but disagreed with the idea that the combat portion is separable from the rest of the mission.

“You can't say, ‘We're going to do this and not this.' You need a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to this problem,” he said. Afghanistan needs everything from good governance to roads and electricity, Adm. Fallon said, but work in those areas needs security and stability.

Late last week, General Hillier called on Parliament to show its support “overwhelmingly” to soldiers in Afghanistan, and implied that waffling on the issue could cost Canadian lives.

“I'm not going to stand here and tell you that the suicide bombings of this past week have been related to the debate back here in Canada. But I also cannot stand here and say that they are not,” he said.

Some opposition MPs suggested that the general overstepped his bounds by making demands of elected officials.

With a report from Omar El Akkad

It appears that both Harper and Dion have surrendered their principles – to one another. 

 

[MarkOttawa]

Taliban will target Canadians if they sense political weakness (usual copyright disclaimer)
Globe and Mail, Feb. 25, by Christie Blatchford
http://ago.mobile.globeandmail.com/generated/archive/RTGAM/html/20080225/wblatch25.html

The last time I was in Kandahar, last fall, I had a few calls from one of The Globe and Mail's fixers, the man whose particular job it is to make contacts with local elders and the Taliban and to report back to the journalist in the field.

These conversations were all pretty much of a piece.

I was then out in the middle of nowhere with the Canadian soldiers then just newly in theatre -- the Van Doos, or Royal 22nd Regiment, from Valcartier, Que. The fixer was somewhere else. The cell service was sketchy, the fixer's English rudimentary but infinitely better than my Pashto.

I should say that unlike other Globe correspondents, who sometimes bravely cover the war in Afghanistan as unembedded reporters, or free agents, I spend most of my time embedded with Canadian troops, am able to write what I see or hear with my own ears and eyes, and don't have to rely on our fixers for very much except the occasional ride into the city.

Anyway, as I recall, this fellow initiated every call, and would begin always by doing what I took to be establishing his bona fides: He would mention a cousin or friend of his who was either in village A or who had a cousin or friend in village A, and who was thus allegedly in a position to know what was happening there.

Then he would give me the news, such as it was.

But one day, he volunteered that his Taliban contacts were talking about this new group of Canadian soldiers, that they were French-speaking, and that they'd noted their purported unwillingness to go out of their forward operating bases or to fight. He actually chuckled, making me wish I could smack him, as he delivered this last bit.

I was stunned, to be honest - not because I believed what he said was true or had seen any evidence of it, not because I relied on his information or used it, but because he or his informants were sophisticated enough not only to be aware of the recent shift in Canadian troops but also of nuances in the realpolitik of our country.

I thought of this when I read and saw coverage this weekend of a speech given last Friday by the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier.

I wasn't there when he spoke and haven't been able to find a complete transcript of his remarks, but from all I've found there was nothing remotely controversial in what he had to say.

Contrary to some reports, Gen. Hillier didn't push MPs to extend the mission so much as he strongly urged them to give soldiers "clarity of purpose" (in other words, give them clear marching orders and do it as quickly as possible) and to suggest that if MPs are, as it now appears, going to extend the mission (past the now-artificial deadline of 2009 to a new artificial deadline of 2011), to do so with one firm voice.

Part of Gen. Hillier's rationale, perfectly within his mandate as the head of the Canadian Forces and his duty to speak for his soldiers, was that young troops deserve to know what it is their Parliament is asking of them.

The other part was that with the fate of the mission uncertain, "we are, in the eyes of the Taliban, in a window of extreme vulnerability. And the longer we go without that clarity, with the issue in doubt, the more the Taliban will target us as a perceived weak link," he said.

Well, if the Ottawa press corps didn't directly pronounce the very idea preposterous, (though I thought some of the all-knowing smiles and body language of the TV reporters hinted at that), it was implicit in story lines suggesting the speech had "raised eyebrows" or that the general had somehow "crossed a line."

Certainly, NDP defence critic Dawn Black's reaction, that it was "beyond belief" for the CDS to even suggest that recent suicide bombings could be linked to the Canadian debate, was widely repeated. That is hardly a shocker: Ms. Black has been to Kandahar all of once, on one of those VIP-type quickie visits that are largely confined to the big base at Kandahar Air Field and environs, and the lead item on her website is a "Peace Advocacy" page. Those eyebrows are easily raised.

Truth is, it is quite believable that the Taliban would target Canadians if they sense that it is a useful time to inflict casualties.

Afghanistan may be a country reduced to rubble by decades of war and invasion, its infrastructure in tatters, its people mostly illiterate, but that doesn't translate to a primitive enemy, as my instructive chat with the fixer reminded me. A senior Canadian commander once described Afghanistan as "Babylon with cellphones," and it remains the best description I've heard, precisely because it incorporates both the roughness of the place and the clever, self-sufficient adaptability of the people.

If only because Afghans have been fighting for so long on their own turf - in recent history against the invading former Soviet Union, against one another - they are singularly good at it. It is no happy accident that virtually everything in that bloody country, whatever else its function, is also purpose-built for fighting.

Where a decade ago the word Taliban meant the group of religious zealots who controlled the country for a few exceptionally brutal years, the word now is shorthand for a veritable soup of fighters - the young and impoverished, drawn in by money, boredom or intimidation; those affiliated with tribal bosses or drug lords who share only the Taliban's goal of instability; foreign fighters from Pakistan and elsewhere, and old-school ideologues. But the one sure thing is that they are a smart and informed fighting force, as capable of recognizing political weakness in NATO home countries as they are a military one in the field.

There was nothing in Gen. Hillier's remarks to suggest that there should not be a debate about Afghanistan. And Lord thundering Jesus, as they say in Gen. Hillier's native province, there has been nothing but debate in this country since our soldiers first went to Kandahar. With every Canadian soldier's death, there is debate; with every Senlis Council report, there is debate; with every public opinion poll, there is debate.

Nor was there anything in his remarks to suggest that Parliament's authority ought to be usurped, or undermined. Gen. Hillier said that Parliament's servants, the soldiers, await Parliament's direction. He merely asked that the direction be clear, cogent and given swiftly.

In the Commons' debate today M. Dion said clearly that the 1,000 additional NATO troops at Kandahar the government is demanding would take over those things our troop would no longer do after February 2009, specifically "counterinsurgency" (the word he used). 
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jqc5q7c8FSc0Zf9xFCSx_UAk12_A

...Dion made it clear Liberals have a different interpretation of the word "rotate." They want other NATO troops to take over the lead combat role, leaving Canadian soldiers to focus on reconstruction, security and training Afghan forces...

In other words (though M. Dion did not himself utter the "C" word) no combat in the usual sense of the term for the CF.  I ask:

1) What country will want to send troops to Kandahar to assume the "combat" aspects of the mission if we pull out of them? Moreover, the Manley panel said a new NATO battle group of some 1,000 troops is needed to augment the CF's battle group of the same size. The plain idea is roughly to double the combat capability in the area; M. Dion's position is directly contrary to the point of the Manley recommendation (all this with the Marine MEU aside since it's only supposed to be there seven months).

2) How will Canadian soldiers feel if they are serving alongside NATO comrades, allowed to fight properly when they are not? Bound by caveats, contrary to M. Dion's denial that the Liberal restrictions are in fact caveats?

3) How will Afghans feel about their Canadian comrades training them but not allowed to go on combat operations with them? Their morale will hardly be helped.

M. Dion also said it would be up to the Canadian military actually to determine how to conduct operations under the constraints the Liberals would place on the mission. That would put the CF leadership in a terrible, almost unresolvable, bind--coming up with ROEs that best serve the safety of our troops without being able to take the initiative against the enemy in a war zone.

In any event, why no "combat" when most of our casualties are caused by IEDs?  Where's the logic?  Joke.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/liberal-policy-on-afstan-no-logic.html

Our political Fantasyland.
http://www.disneydreamer.com/disneyland/fantasy.htm

Mark
Ottawa