The Manley Report

[jdobbin]

Manley released his report today.

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

The Manley panel has recommended extending Canada's military mission in Afghanistan indefinitely, with a new emphasis on diplomacy, training and reconstruction.

The 90-page report released Tuesday doesn't put any time limit on ending the Canadian mission.

Dion's reaction.

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

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said his party still had "strong reasons" to call for withdrawing troops next year and switching Canada's focus to a non-combat role.

"We have carried this mission during three years and it's time for Canada to do something else in Afghanistan," Dion told reporters in Kitchener, Ont.

NDP Jack Layton openly criticized the report, saying Canada must move away from fighting the Taliban to ensure lasting political change and stability in the country.

"At a time when Canada should be drastically changing course to help the Afghan people build a lasting peace in the region, this report is recommending more of the same," he said.

"The combat role is the wrong role for Canada and it's not making life more secure for Afghans."

Bob Rae has hedged Dion's statement.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...YGCSPfvznT1VTbA

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion is sticking - for now - to his position that Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan should end as scheduled in February 2009.

But foreign affairs critic Bob Rae isn't ruling out the possibility that the party might be able to live with the Manley panel's call for an indefinite extension if soldiers get more equipment and NATO allies step up with more troops.

"Until we know what the reaction is of NATO and all the other partners, quite frankly, it's hard to say if the recommendations are realistic," Rae told The Canadian Press.

"I think we're in for a period of intense discussion and consideration."

Dion, who was attending a party caucus retreat when the panel's report was released Tuesday, said he won't comment until he's read the report. Instead, he reiterated his long-held position that the combat mission must end next year, with Canadian troops then refocusing their effort on reconstruction, training of Afghan security forces and humanitarian aid.

"We think it's by far the most dangerous mission in Afghanistan. We have carried this mission during three years and it's time for Canada to do something else in Afghanistan, to help the people of Afghanistan," Dion said.

I don't think support for an indefinite mission will be widespread in Canada. CBC Radio interviewed soldiers and their families at CFB Shilo and some expressed surprise at the lack of timeline. Soldiers at Shilo will be leaving for Afghanistan in a few weeks.

Families and soldiers praised the panel for pressure it puts on getting better equipment and for going after NATO for more support.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...ukh5uF4ErGDe7IA

The families of several Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan are praising a report today that recommends troops get better equipment and that NATO take on a greater role in the country.

Jim Davis, whose son Cpl. Paul Davis was killed in 2006, says it's time NATO stepped up and offered more assistance in the volatile southern region where Canada is operating.

He says Canada can't be expected to bear the brunt of the responsibility without help.

Edited January 22, 2008 by jdobbin

[searchingforaformerclearity]

Diplomacy, training and reconstruction... that's a noble focus, yet for some reason we need a combat role??

[Keepitsimple]

Jdobbin - thanks for starting the thread in an unbiased fashion - and I mean that sincerely. You've presented a good selection of information to start things off.

I saw Manley's interview with Don Newman today and two things caught my attention:

1) He challenged the Prime Minister more than once to use the report as clear direction to start showing leadership in talking one-on-one with NATO leaders in blunt fashion. In other words - tell them to poop or get off the pot. He said our voice should be commsurate with the contribution and sacrifice we are making.

2) He openly chastised the media for only concentrating on deaths, ramp ceremonies and funerals and ignoring all of the very real construction, development and other imporovements made by Canada and other countries. He recounted a story where 5 Canadian reporters had gathered at a "good news" presentation in Kabul where they would be shown what Manley described as tremendous accomplishments - schools, hospitals, etc......but then there was news of a Canadian fatality - all the reporters ran off to cover that and the good-news story was dead (no pun intended). Not surprisingly, Newman moved on to other things like a speeding bullet.

[capricorn]

I saw Manley's interview with Don Newman today and two things caught my attention:

Manley also appeared on MDL. I was struck with his passion and depth as he spoke about the whole Afghanistan question. I think he was an excellent choice by Harper to lead this panel. What a difference it would have made if our other politicians had spoken so well on this issue. I have always liked Manley and my esteem for him has grown with his performance in guiding this panel and the final report.

Most of us here have been saying Canada has to talk tough and that meant putting our cards on the table in NATO's face. If the report is adopted as government policy, which I hope happens, the ball will be in NATO's court and a productive debate can take place in the H of C.

Now all that is needed is for the Liberals to get their act together and stop talking from both sides of their mouth. There has been much criticism against the Conservatives because Harper seemed to control the message and MPs were de facto muzzled. Well, this is one time I think the Liberals need to learn from the Conservatives. The party must speak as one with a consistent message. If there is more than one message coming out from different Liberals, party members and MPs should be told to shut up and let Dion take the lead.

[jdobbin]

Jdobbin - thanks for starting the thread in an unbiased fashion - and I mean that sincerely. You've presented a good selection of information to start things off.

Thanks. I'm happy that Manley and the panel made it clear that Canada wants to do and should be in Afghanistan after we have driven off the Taliban in one area. We have not seen enough support from NATO to be able to do that. We can't be retaking the same territory every year and rebuilding schools and roads because there is no one left to hold them when Canadian soldiers move on to fight the next fight.

One thing I wish they had mentioned was the issue of Pakistan and Iran and weapons and insurgent passing from country to country. This has to be addressed as well but everyone seems to be shying away from dealing with it.

Edited January 23, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Most of us here have been saying Canada has to talk tough and that meant putting our cards on the table in NATO's face. If the report is adopted as government policy, which I hope happens, the ball will be in NATO's court and a productive debate can take place in the H of C.

Now all that is needed is for the Liberals to get their act together and stop talking from both sides of their mouth. There has been much criticism against the Conservatives because Harper seemed to control the message and MPs were de facto muzzled. Well, this is one time I think the Liberals need to learn from the Conservatives. The party must speak as one with a consistent message. If there is more than one message coming out from different Liberals, party members and MPs should be told to shut up and let Dion take the lead.

Manley was quite direct that Harper has to take the lead as Prime Minister on the portfolio and get NATO to pay attention and act or Canada will be gone in 2009.

Dion has said there is a role for Canada in Afghanistan after 2009. Manley outlined what that role should be and how we can achieve it. We can't continue on the way we are now or the mission will fail according to the panel. I think Dion should support Harper in getting more NATO involvement.

[Argus]

Jdobbin - thanks for starting the thread in an unbiased fashion - and I mean that sincerely. You've presented a good selection of information to start things off.

I saw Manley's interview with Don Newman today and two things caught my attention:

1) He challenged the Prime Minister more than once to use the report as clear direction to start showing leadership in talking one-on-one with NATO leaders in blunt fashion. In other words - tell them to poop or get off the pot. He said our voice should be commsurate with the contribution and sacrifice we are making.

You don't think we've been doing that? The problem is that in Europe there is massive political cowardice not just about a combat role but a combat role which would be seen by their anti-American citizens as supporting George Bush - and one which the opposition, as in Canada, would be ruthless in exploiting to call the governments in question George Bush's lackeys.

2) He openly chastised the media for only concentrating on deaths, ramp ceremonies and funerals and ignoring all of the very real construction, development and other imporovements made by Canada and other countries. He recounted a story where 5 Canadian reporters had gathered at a "good news" presentation in Kabul where they would be shown what Manley described as tremendous accomplishments - schools, hospitals, etc......but then there was news of a Canadian fatality - all the reporters ran off to cover that and the good-news story was dead (no pun intended). Not surprisingly, Newman moved on to other things like a speeding bullet.

As with Europe, the Left despises the combat role in Afghanistan, or any role which they see as propping up the "great Satan". I think much of the Left in Canada would far rather see Al Quaeda thrive and blow up entire cities in the West rather than see George Bush win.

[Argus]

Manley was quite direct that Harper has to take the lead as Prime Minister on the portfolio and get NATO to pay attention and act or Canada will be gone in 2009.

Dion has said there is a role for Canada in Afghanistan after 2009. Manley outlined what that role should be and how we can achieve it. We can't continue on the way we are now or the mission will fail according to the panel. I think Dion should support Harper in getting more NATO involvement.

I agree, but Dion is too busy shamelessly using this to try to gain votes.

[jdobbin]

I agree, but Dion is too busy shamelessly using this to try to gain votes.

And Harper denied MPs and Dion permission to travel to Afghanistan for almost two years saying it was too dangerous and when they did travel there last week, they said the Liberals were only now trying to find out about Afghanistan.

It was shameless and ridiculous.

Edited January 23, 2008 by jdobbin

[Wilber]

Manley's report seems objective and well thought out. Let's hope all parties will see it as such and act accordingly.

[capricorn]

Manley's report seems objective and well thought out. Let's hope all parties will see it as such and act accordingly.

Wilber, how I admire your optimism. Truth is the government and the opposition will not see eye to eye on the Manley report.

The Liberals:

'For a Liberal party that only recently achieved a fragile internal consensus on the Afghan question, the report is highly problematic and Manley's bombast is incendiary.

"Our current position, as you know, is that the combat mission end in February 2009," Liberal Leader Stephane Dion emerged to say at a Liberal caucus meeting in Kitchener, Ont."

His foreign affairs critic, Bob Rae, was more equivocal: "I think we're in for a period of intense discussion and consideration."

The NDP:

"At a time when Canada should be drastically changing course to help the Afghan people build a lasting peace in the region, this report is recommending more of the same," said NDP Leader Jack Layton."

The Greens:

"Elizabeth May of the Green Party likened the report to pouring fuel on a fire."

The Bloc...well so far, who knows.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...yqtAF60Ssjn5hvA

This should make for a very lively debate in the H of C especially since the Liberals have been sending out mixed signals in reacting to the panel's report.

[jdobbin]

Wilber, how I admire your optimism. Truth is the government and the opposition will not see eye to eye on the Manley report.

This should make for a very lively debate in the H of C especially since the Liberals have been sending out mixed signals in reacting to the panel's report.

And the Tories have not reacted at all to the major criticisms of Harper and the government on the issue of Afghanistan. The criticism was on leadership, strategic planning, aid, security and openness. The Tories kept Parliamentarians out of Afghanistan and said that any criticism of the government on the issue of Afghanistan meant support for the Taliban. It was a poisonous environment.

Now, there are major criticisms in the Manley Report. Harper will have to address them or the mission will fail.

[Wilber]

Wilber, how I admire your optimism. Truth is the government and the opposition will not see eye to eye on the Manley report.

I know it's wishfull thinking but let's hope any debate will be over substance and not making political hay. They should all keep in mind that there are Canadians fighting and dieing over there. They deserve better.

[blueblood]

And the Tories have not reacted at all to the major criticisms of Harper and the government on the issue of Afghanistan. The criticism was on leadership, strategic planning, aid, security and openness. The Tories kept Parliamentarians out of Afghanistan and said that any criticism of the government on the issue of Afghanistan meant support for the Taliban. It was a poisonous environment.

Now, there are major criticisms in the Manley Report. Harper will have to address them or the mission will fail.

Is Manley running again. I am no Liberal supporter, but a good member in the house of commons is good to have.

[August1991]

1) He challenged the Prime Minister more than once to use the report as clear direction to start showing leadership in talking one-on-one with NATO leaders in blunt fashion. In other words - tell them to poop or get off the pot. He said our voice should be commsurate with the contribution and sacrifice we are making.

That seems Manley's main piece of advice. He wants NATO to come up with 1000 more troops.

Well, how can Manley do that? He suggested that if NATO wasn't forthcoming, then we would have to rethink our NATO commitment. Is that what we want?

Ultimately, it is the US and the UK that will shoulder the responsibility in Afghanistan using troops no longer necessary in Iraq. IIRC, the US has about 20,000 troops in Afghanistan and the UK around 4,000. We have about 2,000.

Manley also appeared on MDL. I was struck with his passion and depth as he spoke about the whole Afghanistan question.

I heard him on As It Happens and he struck me as a good (Liberal) politician. He didn't answer the questions and instead spoke about what he wanted to talk about. Dion and Harper are not like that.

Thanks. I'm happy that Manley and the panel made it clear that Canada wants to do and should be in Afghanistan after we have driven off the Taliban in one area. We have not seen enough support from NATO to be able to do that. We can't be retaking the same territory every year and rebuilding schools and roads because there is no one left to hold them when Canadian soldiers move on to fight the next fight.

One thing I wish they had mentioned was the issue of Pakistan and Iran and weapons and insurgent passing from country to country. This has to be addressed as well but everyone seems to be shying away from dealing with it.

I haven't read the report itself but have only skimmed it. You can take that for what it's worth.

From what I gather, Manley wants us to apply Nixon's strategy in Vietnam: Vietnamization. That is, we should hand over responsibility to the Afghan military and train and equip them. That makes alot of sense and it might have worked in Vietnam if Congress had been willing to vote funds in 1974. IOW, we must be willing to support the Afghans financially into the future.

In addition, I understand that Manley was critical of CIDA (or at least, that was the CBC spin):

...the Canadian aid program in Afghanistan has been impeded not only by the dangerous security environment in Kandahar but by CIDA’s own administrative constraints. More than half of CIDA funding in Afghanistan flows through multilateral agencies, and another 35 per cent is chanelled through national programs administered by the central government in Kabul. This leaves little for locally managed quick-action projects that bring immediate improvements to everyday life for Afghans, or for “signature” projects readily identifiable as supported by Canada.

National Post

I don't know if that's a criticsm. It's the only feasible way for CIDA to operate. Frankly, I think Canada should consider simply paying the salaries of Afghan soldiers and get CIDA technicians out of Afghanistan entirely. If we have to have humanitarian aid, we might consider paying a baby bonus to the wives of Afghan soldiers.

-----

I have never really posted here my thoughts about this war but I had a long chat with an Afghan friend here in Montreal and I combined that with my own knowledge of the area.

I suggest you look at this map. Kandahar is indicated as Qandahar. The colonial British, in their wisdom, separated "Southern Afghanistan" and "joined" it to what was then India and then became West Pakistan. The British did this because they were unable to subdue Afghanistan and they wanted a clear buffer between Russia and the Indian Ocean. On the map, this is indicated as Baluchistan but it is largely Pushtu territory.

All of this is to say that Dion was right to say that we cannot pacify the south of Afghanistan unless we intervene in Pakistan. The Afghan-Pak border is an arbitrary line drawn through territory sort of like the Quebec-Labrador border in the Lower North Shore divides Blanc-Sablon and L'Anse au Clair.

There many failed states in this world and the people living in these countries suffer tragically through no fault of their own. (Zimbabwe is an example that comes to mind.) We cannot solve these problems and we shouldn't try. NATO is in Afghanistan because the Taliban offered a refuge for al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda attacked the US. We must ensure that this won't happen again and we must send a strong signal to other failed states not to attempt this.

Afghanistan is a military mission. Our humanitarian concern is to help the current regime in Kabul to become viable. That's all.

[Argus]

And Harper denied MPs and Dion permission to travel to Afghanistan for almost two years saying it was too dangerous and when they did travel there last week, they said the Liberals were only now trying to find out about Afghanistan.

It was shameless and ridiculous.

I think Harper correctly decided that the Liberals had no interest whatsoever in what was going on in Afghanistan, that their position on Afghanistan was set in stone - and aimed squarely at domestic politics and ONLY domestic politics. The only reason the Liberals wanted to go to Afghanistan was to be seen in Afghanistan, and then be able to say "Well, I was there, and we need to get out". Dion's visit proved he was right. Dion ignored what he saw and what he was told, and used the visit as a political soap box to continue shamelessly politicking on the issue.

The truth is the Liberal party doesn't really have any issue with Afghanistan. They launched the mission, after all. Had Martin remained in power we would already have extended through 2011, and the Liberal Party would be solidly behind the mission. But Dion and the others in leadership see this as a chance to get votes by portraying the Tories as warmongers and Bush lackeys, and so almost as soon as they lost power they began decrying the very mission they had begun. It's shameless, and indicative of the complete and utter abscence of anything even approaching integrity in your party.

[Army Guy]

jdobbin: Nice presentation, excellent topic, well done.

Although the report was a breath of fresh air, did it really open up new doors, has it really uncovered anything that has not already been brought up. So really all that has happen is a highly respected Liberal has put all our cards on the table at once....in one nice neat package. should have been done a long time ago...

I hope, not only as a soldier but as a Canadian, that our government actually uses it recomendations and acts on them, and i hope that it invokes a massive debate that unites Canada's stand on this problem, not only within the Cons and all or most of the parties...But the Canadian people as well.

Here is what some of the experts are saying:

experts.

And my favorite military supporter Christie Blatchford:

christie

Manleys main recommendation seems to hinge on the prospect of NATO coming up with 1000 more troops....

Why just NATO, why not Canada, both the US and Britian are expanding thier roles, why could we not as well...upgrade our current Battlegroup to a small Brigade group...Set the example, for others to follow...

The quicker we pacify the area the quicker we can scale back and concentrate on what every Canadain really wants...reconstruction...and what the soldiers want to finish the job we started and go home.

I'm hopeful that this report does spur a productive debate across the nations at all levels that produces something I'm hoping that Canadians enter these debates with open minds and have not already made up thier minds about Afgan..

[Keepitsimple]

Army Guy,

You seem to have a fair amount of operational insight into Afghanistan. Do you have enough knowledge to put into perspective the range and grasp of the insurgency? We know that Kandahar and Helmand provinces are tough spots because they border on Pakistan....and most of the news we hear is related to our Canadian boys which by default means we hear a lot of bad stuff. But how about the other provinces that are bordered by Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Iran. Is there a lot of bad stuff going on there? My sense is that the insurgency is focused on Kandahar and Helmand - and primarily because of the wild Pakistan border area. Because of the way the media focuses on "the bad", one could get the idea that all of Afghanistan is going to hell in a handbasket - and I don't think that's true. I don't mean to downplay the effects of a Kandahar/Helmand beach head but are you able to give us a more complete perspective of the entire country?

Edited January 23, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[jdobbin]

I think Harper correctly decided that the Liberals had no interest whatsoever in what was going on in Afghanistan, that their position on Afghanistan was set in stone - and aimed squarely at domestic politics and ONLY domestic politics. The only reason the Liberals wanted to go to Afghanistan was to be seen in Afghanistan, and then be able to say "Well, I was there, and we need to get out". Dion's visit proved he was right. Dion ignored what he saw and what he was told, and used the visit as a political soap box to continue shamelessly politicking on the issue.

Harper decided not to let Parliamentarians go because he decided that they didn't deserve to go? Seems to me that if that is the reason, it was an attempt to thwart our democratic process. Every single NATO country has allowed committees to visit except the Harper government. Those countries didn't prevent their legisators going because they didn't like the reasons.

One of the big failures the Manley panel points out is the lack of openness on the part of the Harper government. There is a news blackout on a regular basis even when the news is good. Any attempt for a non-partisan approach to try and get Parliamentarians information has been thwarted. There are Liberals in both the Senate and the House who might be convinced of the importance of the mission but they are shut out and accused of being with the Taliban. It is unnecessarily inflammatory.

Edited January 23, 2008 by jdobbin

[capricorn]

In a press release, Elizabeth May and the Green Party expand on their initial reaction that the Manley report adds fuel to the fire.

“The Manley Report fails to consider that the recommendation of more ISAF forces from a Christian/Crusader heritage will continue to fuel an insurgency that has been framed as a ‘Jihad’. This, in turn, may feed the recruitment of suicide bombers and other insurgents,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “Better human security is certainly needed in the South but it should be provided by a different cultural mix of UN countries as well as the Afghan army and police. Even if this proves challenging to accomplish, this key objective should have been included.” (bolding mine)

What is meant by "Christian/Crusader heritage"? In essence the Green party states that our troops are fueling the insurgency. IMO this is very insulting to our troops.

[Army Guy]

Do you have enough knowledge to put into perspective the range and grasp of the insurgency? We know that Kandahar and Helmand provinces are tough spots because they border on Pakistan....and most of the news we hear is related to our Canadian boys which by default means we hear a lot of bad stuff. But how about the other provinces that are bordered by Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Iran. Is there a lot of bad stuff going on there? My sense is that the insurgency is focused on Kandahar and Helmand - and primarily because of the wild Pakistan border area. Because of the way the media focuses on "the bad", one could get the idea that all of Afghanistan is going to hell in a handbasket -

I don't know why i used the map below, as it won't support any of my arguments....but it will give you an idea on some of the trouble spots within the whole country...it also gives you something to compare again'st year by year...

But i don't want you to forget that these are reported activities, mostly by NATO, or Afgan gov't troops and police....and while it looks like it is getting worse, it's only because before they were not reported by the locals and the good guys have moved into the area and they report everything...

The Map shows there is a big difference in the northern provinces...very few incidents reported, some only 5 or less a year....thats pretty quite...

Our problem when i was there is we take a chunk of land then leave, the taliban would come back and we'd do it over and over....that is changing now....more FOB are being built by everyone...putting boots on the ground everywhere...they are also placing troops at Afgan police and army OP's, this gives the Afgans quick and direct access to NATO assets such as helo or fast air...but also large armoured QRF ( quick reaction forces) , they are also making sure of the little things that matter, like ensuring the Afgans get paid, get the equipment and monies they need to build proper forts for a lack of a better word...

Overall things are getting better, alot better( hard to tell by the map i know) but when we pushed into Op mudusa we were engaged very shortly after we crossed the start line well within our lines or so we thought........by massive amounts of taliban...now we are not see those numbers...we are not seeing those tactics like we once did...instead lots of hit and run stuff IED's which don't take a large number of troops just a few guys and a shovel...

The best guy to comment on upto date info would be weoponeer as he just got back, and he could comment on what he saw.

map

[M.Dancer]

In a press release, Elizabeth May and the Green Party expand on their initial reaction that the Manley report adds fuel to the fire.

“The Manley Report fails to consider that the recommendation of more ISAF forces from a Christian/Crusader heritage will continue to fuel an insurgency that has been framed as a ‘Jihad’. This, in turn, may feed the recruitment of suicide bombers and other insurgents,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “Better human security is certainly needed in the South but it should be provided by a different cultural mix of UN countries as well as the Afghan army and police. Even if this proves challenging to accomplish, this key objective should have been included.” (bolding mine)

What is meant by "Christian/Crusader heritage"? In essence the Green party states that our troops are fueling the insurgency. IMO this is very insulting to our troops.

Maybe Dion is helping her express herself?

She is right in so much as there should be others willing to takje the burden. Turkey comes to mind. I suppose though not be given a greenlight to defend herself against kurdish terrorists might make her slow to help fight against the Taliban. Saudia Arabia is probably out of the question because they are worthless. India becuase they don't need to fuel muslim/hindu animosity, they have enough already. That leaves the Egyptians and Souyth Africans.....

I wonder exactly who Elizabeth Dion is thinking of?

[jdobbin]

Although the report was a breath of fresh air, did it really open up new doors, has it really uncovered anything that has not already been brought up. So really all that has happen is a highly respected Liberal has put all our cards on the table at once....in one nice neat package. should have been done a long time ago...

I hope, not only as a soldier but as a Canadian, that our government actually uses it recomendations and acts on them, and i hope that it invokes a massive debate that unites Canada's stand on this problem, not only within the Cons and all or most of the parties...But the Canadian people as well.

Manleys main recommendation seems to hinge on the prospect of NATO coming up with 1000 more troops....

Why just NATO, why not Canada, both the US and Britian are expanding thier roles, why could we not as well...upgrade our current Battlegroup to a small Brigade group...Set the example, for others to follow...

The quicker we pacify the area the quicker we can scale back and concentrate on what every Canadain really wants...reconstruction...and what the soldiers want to finish the job we started and go home.

I'm hopeful that this report does spur a productive debate across the nations at all levels that produces something I'm hoping that Canadians enter these debates with open minds and have not already made up thier minds about Afgan..

So far I have not seen the Harper government response on the report. Manley had some specifics for Harper in particular on what he needs to do to keep the mission from being a failure.

As far as Canada sending 1000 more troops, the problem is that it does not put any pressure on NATO to do anything. It isn't our committment that is in question, it is our allies who cheer from the sidelines.

[Argus]

Harper decided not to let Parliamentarians go because he decided that they didn't deserve to go? Seems to me that if that is the reason, it was an attempt to thwart our democratic process. Every single NATO country has allowed committees to visit except the Harper government. Those countries didn't prevent their legisators going because they didn't like the reasons.

Do you have evidence that says committees from "every single NATO country" visited Afghanistan and went to combat zones in the south? I find that highly unlikely. I would suggest that most other NATO countries could allow schoolchildren to visit for all the danger their troops are in, so that really wasn't an issue for them. For us, where rockets tend to land at the base every day, it is.

One of the big failures the Manley panel points out is the lack of openness on the part of the Harper government. There is a news blackout on a regular basis even when the news is good.

Actually, from what I understand, the problem is the press is not interested in good news. Manley himself complained about that.

Any attempt for a non-partisan approach to try and get Parliamentarians information has been thwarted.

Oh bullshit. There is no one in the oppposition who has made any non partisan attempts at anything with regard to Afghanistan. The NDP and BQ are old-time anti-militarists who wouldn't consent to combat troops doing anything other than, perhaps, fighting the Americans. The Liberals have, under Dion, taken the position that Afghanistan is nothing more than an opportunity to score cheap political points, and have acted accordingly.

There are Liberals in both the Senate and the House who might be convinced of the importance of the mission but they are shut out and accused of being with the Taliban. It is unnecessarily inflammatory.

If Dion finds anyone in his party trying to publicly say the mission is important in and of itself - as opposed to as a chance to score political points - Dion would silence him. Dion sees Afghanistan as one of his shining hopes - along with the environment - to unseat the Tories. He's being dispicably dishonest on both, but that would hardly matter to the media - much less to a party like yours.

[Argus]

In a press release, Elizabeth May and the Green Party expand on their initial reaction that the Manley report adds fuel to the fire.

“The Manley Report fails to consider that the recommendation of more ISAF forces from a Christian/Crusader heritage will continue to fuel an insurgency that has been framed as a ‘Jihad’. This, in turn, may feed the recruitment of suicide bombers and other insurgents,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “Better human security is certainly needed in the South but it should be provided by a different cultural mix of UN countries as well as the Afghan army and police. Even if this proves challenging to accomplish, this key objective should have been included.” (bolding mine)

What is meant by "Christian/Crusader heritage"? In essence the Green party states that our troops are fueling the insurgency. IMO this is very insulting to our troops.

The Crusades never got anywhere near Afghanistan. She'd have been better off in choosing another cliche and referring to our "colonialist" heritage. But never mind, I suppose one cliche is as good as another when you have no active brain matter to differentiate between the two.