Afghanistan

[capricorn]

You think Guergis should have been talking about Dion's itinerary in Afghanistan?

The Kabul incident is irrelevant here as the Taliban know full well Canadians troops are concentrated in Kandahar. Had they wanted to target Dion and Ignatieff they would have targeted the Kandahar base.

I think Guergis needs a good slap about breaking the military gag order on such sensitive trips.

It's interesting that the same day Guergis made her comments on Saturdey January 12, the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail carried stories about Dion's Afghanistan trip.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/293451

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...fghanistan/home

Not referring to Kandahar as the ultimate destination is no excuse for taking the liberty of running a story or making a statement.

But you have not responded to my observation that had there not been a Canadian casualty shortly after he returned to Canada, Dion may not have raised the Guergis issue.

[jdobbin]

The Kabul incident is irrelevant here as the Taliban know full well Canadians troops are concentrated in Kandahar. Had they wanted to target Dion and Ignatieff they would have targeted the Kandahar base.

I think Guergis needs a good slap about breaking the military gag order on such sensitive trips.

It's interesting that the same day Guergis made her comments on Saturdey January 12, the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail carried stories about Dion's Afghanistan trip.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/293451

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...fghanistan/home

Not referring to Kandahar as the ultimate destination is no excuse for taking the liberty of running a story or making a statement.

But you have not responded to my observation that had there not been a Canadian casualty shortly after he returned to Canada, Dion may not have raised the Guergis issue.

They know where Canadian soldiers are based but not necessarily where more vulnerable targets like political leaders might be. The incident in Kabul emphasized what a leak in info might lead to.

Both articles you mention reveal what Dion and Ignatieff had done and did not give away their next day itinerary.

The issue of Guergis mentioning the itinerary was mentioned before the death of the soldier as far as I can tell from the timestamps on the stories. You can check if you like. You seem to think the soldier's death is the only reason it is an issue.

[capricorn]

The issue of Guergis mentioning the itinerary was mentioned before the death of the soldier as far as I can tell from the timestamps on the stories.

Yes that's correct.

Edit: I correct myself. On reviewing this matter, the soldier was killed on January 15 and his death was reported the same day. Dion's call for Guergis' resignation came one day later, January 16:

http://www.liberal.ca/story_13490_e.aspx

You seem to think the soldier's death is the only reason it is an issue.

I'm thinking that's why Dion raised the Guergis thing. Had there not been a casualty, I'm not so sure Dion would have made such a fuss. I guess maybe he felt it was a "near miss" on his personal security but we'll never know.

Edited January 17, 2008 by capricorn

[jdobbin]

Yes that's correct.

Edit: I correct myself. On reviewing this matter, the soldier was killed on January 15 and his death was reported the same day. Dion's call for Guergis' resignation came one day later, January 16:

I'm thinking that's why Dion raised the Guergis thing. Had there not been a casualty, I'm not so sure Dion would have made such a fuss. I guess maybe he felt it was a "near miss" on his personal security but we'll never know.

From what I can tell, the Globe mentioned the military itself was irritated that the itinerary was released the way it was. Are they being partisan or do they have a legitimate concern?

Since Dion wasn't killed, you don't think it is an issue?

Edited January 17, 2008 by jdobbin

[capricorn]

From what I can tell, the Globe mentioned the military itself was irritated that the itinerary was released the way it was. Are they being partisan or do they have a legitimate concern?

There's no such reporting on military irritation in the article dated January 12 which I linked.

Since Dion wasn't killed, you don't think it is an issue?

I'm saying it is Dion who is making an issue by calling for her resignation. As I said, she deserves a slap on the wrist but Dion calling for her resignation is a lot of hot air.

[jdobbin]

There's no such reporting on military irritation in the article dated January 12 which I linked.

I'm saying it is Dion who is making an issue by calling for her resignation. As I said, she deserves a slap on the wrist but Dion calling for her resignation is a lot of hot air.

Actually, I was incorrect about the military being irritated. They were enforcing operational security which the minister bypassed.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...4/BNStory/Front

The remarks appeared on news sites, even as journalists embedded with Canadian Forces in Kandahar were barred from making any mention of the fact that the VIPs were in town. This is standard for what the military describes as reasons of "operational security." It is customary for news of such visits to be embargoed until after dignitaries have boarded an outbound plane.

You think a slap on the wrist for endangering Canadian troops and officials cuts it?

If a member of Liberal MP or minister put troops in danger like this, would you be so forgiving?

Edited January 17, 2008 by jdobbin

[Army Guy]

If a member of Liberal MP or minister put troops in danger like this, would you be so forgiving?

Actually every vist by every tom dick and harry puts soldiers lives at risk....Afgan is a war zone, not a tourist attraction for every elected member to have a media blitz in....But a actual war zone, where people are shooting and things....

There are those out there that say they have every right to vist and to get first hand knowledge of the situation....

true enough.

But how much info can you get from inside the wire, or by a face to face talk with the PM of Afgan....more than a phone call...How about arranging one fact finding trip, and have them brief everyone on thier return in parliment you know nice and safe parliment.

Let me ask you this, how many party leaders, have gone to the states for a one on one with the president....or for that matter any western world country....just for a chat or coffee, share a timmies....So why a war zone half way around the world....

[M.Dancer]

Let me ask you this, how many party leaders, have gone to the states for a one on one with the president....or for that matter any western world country....just for a chat or coffee, share a timmies....So why a war zone half way around the world....

I wouldn't begrudge any senior member a chance to have face to face with the troops. I would especially like to see layton up front....and given a chance to see what our troops are actually doing. And if he decided to stay forever, he might even get my vote.

I don't know so much about him visiting other nations though. There's only so much shame and ridicule we can bear...

[jdobbin]

Actually every vist by every tom dick and harry puts soldiers lives at risk....Afgan is a war zone, not a tourist attraction for every elected member to have a media blitz in....But a actual war zone, where people are shooting and things....

There are those out there that say they have every right to vist and to get first hand knowledge of the situation....

true enough.

But how much info can you get from inside the wire, or by a face to face talk with the PM of Afgan....more than a phone call...How about arranging one fact finding trip, and have them brief everyone on thier return in parliment you know nice and safe parliment.

Let me ask you this, how many party leaders, have gone to the states for a one on one with the president....or for that matter any western world country....just for a chat or coffee, share a timmies....So why a war zone half way around the world....

The Conservative government prevented any Parliamentarian from going to Afghanistan over the years they were in office by saying it was too insecure. Then they sent their own ministers over and trumpeted the fact that great security measures were being made and told the House of Commons that they did not know the facts on the ground.

Finally, when permission is granted to go to Afghanistan by the government for the leader of the Official Opposition, the Tories have the gall to say Dion is finally going to find out what is happening there. Of course it ignores the fact that the Harper government denied permission in the first place.

Every other country of NATO has sent people from their committees except for Canada. Opposition leaders routinely meet with foreign leaders. Harper himself travelled to the U.S. as Opposition leader to meet senior elected officials. I can't recall him meeting the President but he did meet senators and congressmen. Harper meets with Opposition leaders and politicians who visit Canada. He has done so hundreds of times when committees travel to Canada for various reasons.

The right wing is playing it fast and loose with Afghanistan by saying the Opposition doesn't care the soldiers in Afghanistan because they won't go and when they do go, they say that they put the troops in danger. I'm sorry. You can't have it both ways.

Edited January 17, 2008 by jdobbin

[capricorn]

There are those out there that say they have every right to vist and to get first hand knowledge of the situation....

true enough.

But how much info can you get from inside the wire, or by a face to face talk with the PM of Afgan....more than a phone call...How about arranging one fact finding trip, and have them brief everyone on thier return in parliment you know nice and safe parliment.

What do you think of the fact that the Liberals submitted their recommendations to the Manley panel on January 8, 2008 before the Dion/Ignatieff Afghan visit?

"First, on Jan. 8, the Liberals delivered their party's official position on Canada's military role in Afghanistan to the John Manley panel, which is expected to deliver its report on the future of Canada's mission in the wartorn country before the end of the month. As expected, Dion insisted Canada's combat role in Afghanistan should end in February 2009.

Three days later, on Jan. 11, Dion and Michael Ignatieff flew to Afghanistan for a whopping two-day "fact-finding mission."(Scratch head here). If you're wondering why the Liberals didn't do it the other way around, then you have more political instincts than Dion and Ignatieff and all of their handlers combined.

Any reasonable person would assume someone should go find the facts before they write a report stating their informed opinion. Apparently, such a concept is foreign to the two academics and their handlers."

The article continues and slaps the Conservatives for the Keen firing, then concludes with this on Dion's pronouncements on Pakistan:

"On Thursday night, during an interview with the CBC's Peter Mansbridge, Dion backed away from his irrational position and said what he actually meant was for Canada and our NATO allies to have more diplomatic intervention with Pakistan to stop the flow of insurgents into Afghanistan.

To his credit, Mansbridge visibly scoffed, and pointed out that Canada, the United States and other allies have been doing that for six years and asked what else Dion would do.

"Well, I have no other solution than to say that we need to be very assertive in our diplomatic effort and pressure on Pakistan."

Mansbridge pressed on, asking Dion what he meant by being "very assertive."

Dion's answer: "I have no magic solution to offer on that and nobody has."

Hmmm? On second thought, this was no competition at all. This week, Dion gets the gold, silver and bronze medal for political and policy idiocy. The Conservatives only get honourable mention."

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/t...3a2f1f1&p=2

The Liberals putting the cart before the horse on the Afghan mission will not be lost on Canadians. I can't wait for the spin to be start on this one when Manley's report is released. This spinning must be making a lot of Liberals dizzy.

[jdobbin]

The Liberals putting the cart before the horse on the Afghan mission will not be lost on Canadians. I can't wait for the spin to be start on this one when Manley's report is released. This spinning must be making a lot of Liberals dizzy.

I think that what will not be lost on Canadians is that a Conservative majority means two more years in Afghanistan after 2009. No real way to spin that.

[Keepitsimple]

In remarking on Manley's report - finally, a Liberal who makes some sense:

Liberal Sen. Colin Kenny, who chairs the Senate defence and national security committee, said dire problems with aid delivery must be addressed. But he supports extending the mission.

"If Mr. Dion wants people to continue training that's fine, but they have to be able to protect themselves and sometimes the best defence is a good offence," he said. "If you're just going to wait for people to attack you ... you may find you're not going to come out of it very well.

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2008...pf-4786557.html

[jdobbin]

In remarking on Manley's report - finally, a Liberal who makes some sense:

Lewis MacKenzie says the report will probably end up in the the status quo.

The committee says that we need 1000 soldiers in Kandahar or the mission is in jeopardy.

Canada has been asking for partners for years and have gotten zip. If no troops, we are done.

[Topaz]

I think that what will not be lost on Canadians is that a Conservative majority means two more years in Afghanistan after 2009. No real way to spin that.

Just heard on CTV, that it will probably take 5-8 years to train the National Army over there. Manley had said they train 2000 a month. So were are they. In the past, they go and get trained for the money and then leave. If they don't want to fight why then are Canadians dying for them?

[M.Dancer]

Just heard on CTV, that it will probably take 5-8 years to train the National Army over there. Manley had said they train 2000 a month. So were are they. In the past, they go and get trained for the money and then leave. If they don't want to fight why then are Canadians dying for them?

That sounds about right. 2000 a month, with attrition in 8 years they should have 100,000 trained men.

Considering they are starting from scratch, without an officer corps or even a cadet corp...that's pretty damned good.

[Army Guy]

Care canada

The above story was written by a Policy and advocacy adviser of Care Canada, down playing, and at times spitting on Military efforts to provide Afgan civilians medical care....It's sad that during my 2 tours in Afgan i never seen one CARE Canada employee, veh, piece of equipment nothing...And in thier absence the military is filling a void...one that should be filled by CARE Canada....and when the big bad army guys decide to risk everything including thier own lifes to bring medical care to "Yes" a dangerous place, that was truely in need of this care, there efforts are pissed upon by the very people that should be giving the care in the first place....

Below is the orginal story ...that day some 325 people were treated....but lets not mention that to the Care people they want to concentrate on the 75 that did not get seen....

Orginal story.

[jdobbin]

Transfer of detainees halted in November.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

The Canadian government halted the transfer of Afghan detainees last November after a "credible allegation" that a prisoner had been tortured by local authorities, but didn't reveal the decision until this week.

Officials acted after a prisoner told Canadian diplomats he had allegedly been beaten with electrical cables and a rubber hose by Afghan secret police in Kandahar

Earlier this week the B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) released documents it said were given to federal government officials and that detailed reports of detainee abuse.

Large portions of the documents were censored but they contained interviews with detainees who claimed they had been "whipped with cables, shocked with electricity and/or otherwise hurt" while in Afghan custody in Kandahar.

The group released the documents as part of its legal efforts to pressure the government into taking action on the issue. Amnesty International has also called on Canada to stop transferring detainees.

On Tuesday, the Department of Justice sent a letter to the groups' lawyers, saying that soldiers had temporarily halted the transfers.

"Canadian authorities were informed on November 5, 2007, by Canada's monitoring team, of a credible allegation of mistreatment pertaining to one Canadian-transferred detainee held in an Afghan detention facility," wrote senior counsel J. Sanderson Graham. "As a consequence there have been no transfers of detainees to Afghan authorities since that date. The allegation is under investigation by the Afghan authorities. Canada will resume transferring detainees when it believes it can do so in accordance with its international legal obligations.

I wonder why this information was kept for this long.

[Keepitsimple]

Transfer of detainees halted in November.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

I wonder why this information was kept for this long.

I think it's because they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. As the article goes on to say:

"The Government's decision amounts to a concession that the May 2007 Monitoring Agreement has failed to prevent torture by Afghan authorities," Jason Gratl, president of the BCCLA, said in a press release Wednesday.

and also:

Amnesty International and BCCLA said they will continue legal action against the government because officials have not stopped transfers "indefinitely."

[jdobbin]

I think it's because they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. As the article goes on to say:

This is the reason they kept the information that long?

[Shakeyhands]

this wiki timeline is fascinating...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Afgh...e_abuse_scandal

Good on them for stopping the transfers anyway.

[Keepitsimple]

This is the reason they kept the information that long?

I think we may only have half the story. The information so far says that they are not handing detainees to local authorities. The military has not said what they are doing with them now - they say that's an operational matter. I've got a strong suspicion that our military is handing them over to a central authority where they can be better monitored - that would make a good deal of sense.

[M.Dancer]

I think we may only have half the story. The information so far says that they are not handing detainees to local authorities. The military has not said what they are doing with them now - they say that's an operational matter. I've got a strong suspicion that our military is handing them over to a central authority where they can be better monitored - that would make a good deal of sense.

I prefer to think they no longer take prisoners....far easier logistically

[jdobbin]

I think we may only have half the story. The information so far says that they are not handing detainees to local authorities. The military has not said what they are doing with them now - they say that's an operational matter. I've got a strong suspicion that our military is handing them over to a central authority where they can be better monitored - that would make a good deal of sense.

The military has to find a balance between operational security and withholding information it doesn't find favourable. The information shouldn't have to be released because people have to go to court to find out.

[jdobbin]

Latest on the detainee issue. The PMO tried to blame the military for not telling them on Friday but quickly had to back off.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews...248709020080125

The Conservative government -- which for months dismissed allegations that prisoners captured by Canadians had been abused in Afghan jails -- has been on the defensive since it emerged on Wednesday that the transfer of detainees had been halted in early November because of torture fears.

The chief spokeswoman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a newspaper interview published on Friday that military officials had not informed the government. A few hours later she withdrew her comments, saying she should have kept quiet.

"I misspoke," Sandra Buckler told Reuters, but declined to say whether her initial remarks had been accurate.

The leader of the official opposition Liberal Party mocked the idea that ministers had been left in the dark, saying he had been told of the decision on detainees while on a trip to Afghanistan earlier this month.

"If you cannot believe them on something as important as torture, when will you be able to believe them?" Stephane Dion told reporters.

[jdobbin]

Will the spokesman be fired?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080126/...y_caucus_harper

Conservative MP said it's up to the prime minister to decide whether to fire his chief spokeswoman for making false statements about Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

The government sent out two designated speakers Saturday - one English, one French - to defend Prime Minister Stephen Harper's communications director Sandra Buckler.

Other Conservatives grumbled privately that her misleading remarks are the latest example of how a potential good-news story about the Afghan mission has been plunged into the bowels of public-relations hell.

Alberta MP Art Hanger was not one of the officially designated spokespeople sent out to defend Buckler.

He offered a curt and unenthusiastic reply when asked whether the prime minister should fire his communications director.

"You ask the prime minister that question," Hanger replied outside a Conservative caucus meeting.

"I'm not about to answer it."

John Manley said that there is a poor communication on the part of the PMO in regards to Afghanistan. This doesn't help when they blame the military. Some at Defence were upset about the PMO's comments.