The Manley Report

[jdobbin]

Thats what the media reported, but not true, The Canadian Airbourne regt was given that link between them and the SSF, and bore the SSF battle honors...

The JTF have no linage in our past to link to, even Canada's SAS (special air service company) has had it's links to given to the CAR.

The new unit in Canada is call CSOR (Canadian special operations regt) it is comprised of troops given special training, ( more in line with the old Airbourne regt in it's hay day) thier mandate is wide but do have a standing task to assist JTF-2 in larger operations...

No, it may not motivate anyone your right, but it would'nt weaken our postion either, plus it would mean we would have more boots on the ground...thats the key to safety, of our troops, and accomplishing more in our district.

Thanks for the clarification on the JTF2 and the Devil's Brigade. It was confusing with all the media reports about what O'Connor was trying to do with the same change and and talk about the World War II unit.

What is confounding is why DND would black-out the history of the Devil's Brigade when the media requested it as a backgrounder. Luckily, the same documents were available uncensored from earlier requests so there could be a comparison to see what we deleted. It seemed overly zealous of DND to keep operations that happened 50-60 years ago secret.

Yesterday, the Armed Services committee in the U.S. met and Senator Duncan was furious that Marines were being sent to bail out NATO. It was pointed out that Canada was taking proportionally more casualties than the U.S. was even compared to the U.S. in Iraq. Duncan said he knew the Canadians were doing their part but he was loath to bail out NATO when they had the capabilities.

I think Canada is in the same fix. If we send more troops, we let NATO off the hook.

Edited January 24, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

I think overall it was a pretty balanced report and I agree with it.

Problem, how are they going to get the helicopters by Feb 2009?

Also, The fed lib party must be pretty embarassed about this report that largely mirrors Harpers' Afghan Agenda coming from a prominent liberal?

~wait - that's right, our federal liberals have no shame.

So which party is playing politics with the lives of our soldiers again?

Manley had quite a lot of criticism for the Harper government on the issue of Afghanistan.

The shame seems to be that some on the right wing who accuse others of endangering the lives of our troops.

[Keepitsimple]

I think overall it was a pretty balanced report and I agree with it.

Problem, how are they going to get the helicopters by Feb 2009?

Also, The fed lib party must be pretty embarassed about this report that largely mirrors Harpers' Afghan Agenda coming from a prominent liberal?

~wait - that's right, our federal liberals have no shame.

So which party is playing politics with the lives of our soldiers again?

I think Canada will be able to lease helicopters from some of the countries that are reluctant to commit troops - Italy, Spain - maybe France. As for the Liberal Party being embarrassed, I think the time has come to put aside gross partisanship - which has occurred with all parties. Harper took the first major step towards that end in giving complete autonomy to John Manley to come up with recommendations. After giving him 4 options as a guideline, Manley disregarded them and came up with his "fifth" way. Harper's no dummy - he knew that Manley's report would contain some "blowback" but it was time to get all the facts on the table - from an independent source - and act as a catalyst to get politicians to step up. It's time for the Liberals and Conservatives to use this report as a vehicle to comprimise their differences. The Bloc doesn't count and the NDP are completely irrelevant with their three pronged approach of bringing the troops home now, withdrawing NATO entirely from combat, and having the UN negotiate a peaceful settlement.

[jdobbin]

I think Canada will be able to lease helicopters from some of the countries that are reluctant to commit troops - Italy, Spain - maybe France. As for the Liberal Party being embarrassed, I think the time has come to put aside gross partisanship - which has occurred with all parties. Harper took the first major step towards that end in giving complete autonomy to John Manley to come up with recommendations. After giving him 4 options as a guideline, Manley disregarded them and came up with his "fifth" way. Harper's no dummy - he knew that Manley's report would contain some "blowback" but it was time to get all the facts on the table - from an independent source - and act as a catalyst to get politicians to step up. It's time for the Liberals and Conservatives to use this report as a vehicle to comprimise their differences. The Bloc doesn't count and the NDP are completely irrelevant with their three pronged approach of bringing the troops home now, withdrawing NATO entirely from combat, and having the UN negotiate a peaceful settlement.

I think the first major task is to find the helicopters Canada needs. Harper should make it a priority and the Liberals who have supported the mission thus far to 2009 would support the lease.

On the issue of NATO, Harper has to take the lead in getting troops from other countries. If he is able to get some support in this regard, he might have the wherewithal to get support for an extension as per Manley's guidelines. Canada cannot continue to take proportionally more casualties than any other force without knowing that NATO is going to back them up.

[M.Dancer]

On the news last night it was siggested that the US Marines 7 month deployment would be extended.

[Topaz]

I think overall it was a pretty balanced report and I agree with it.

Problem, how are they going to get the helicopters by Feb 2009?

Also, The fed lib party must be pretty embarassed about this report that largely mirrors Harpers' Afghan Agenda coming from a prominent liberal?

~wait - that's right, our federal liberals have no shame.

So which party is playing politics with the lives of our soldiers again?

This "prominent Liberal" was also the guy that lead the talks with the US over the NAU which BOTH Conservatives and Liberals signed.

[Topaz]

You know Manley came out and said that Harper should be straight forward with the public and let Canadians know what is going on?? Why doesn't he just come and say that as long as he is the PM, Canada will be doing no peacekeeping but will be doing seek and kill mode battles like by our neighbour to the south. As long as the Taliban are fighting the NATO in Afghanistan, Canada will be there and Canada will be, when ever the UN , Nato or the US think we should be fighting. So open your cheque books because this is going to be costly in lives but also remember these brave souls who will/has died for Canada's interest!! Harper should do this so at least these young kids who are joining the military for a better education or can't find a JOB, will KNOW you will be see battle.

[Army Guy]

I think overall it was a pretty balanced report and I agree with it.

Problem, how are they going to get the helicopters by Feb 2009?

The problem is getting the models we requested the CH47F, but the US has plenty of older models CH47's, including the manufacturer, that can be leased or even purchased....we don't even have to stick with the chinnok, the are plenty of older Hvy lift helo's out there...

Perhaps a purchase of a limited qty that could be updated at a later date to the Ch-47f standard...

I think i seen a few articles in CSAR about just this....

[Army Guy]

What is confounding is why DND would black-out the history of the Devil's Brigade when the media requested it as a backgrounder. Luckily, the same documents were available uncensored from earlier requests so there could be a comparison to see what we deleted. It seemed overly zealous of DND to keep operations that happened 50-60 years ago secret.

I don't think it was as much as keeping the SSF history a secret but the facts about the JTF. other than that i would be guessing...

Yesterday, the Armed Services committee in the U.S. met and Senator Duncan was furious that Marines were being sent to bail out NATO. It was pointed out that Canada was taking proportionally more casualties than the U.S. was ever compared to the U.S. in Iraq. Duncan said he knew the Canadians were doing their part but he was loath to bail out NATO when they had the capabilities.

I think Canada is in the same fix. If we send more troops, we let NATO off the hook.

True enough, but do we relly have to shot ourselfs in the foot, in order to make our piont , or do we give the rest of NATO the finger and send our boys reinforcements that could save lives....because that is the bottom line is'nt it....

[jdobbin]

I don't think it was as much as keeping the SSF history a secret but the facts about the JTF. other than that i would be guessing...

True enough, but do we relly have to shot ourselfs in the foot, in order to make our piont , or do we give the rest of NATO the finger and send our boys reinforcements that could save lives....because that is the bottom line is'nt it....

It was the exploits of the Devil's Brigade in World War 2 that were blacked out. Those documents made no mention of JTF2. Many people just couldn't believe the military was being that secret. What next? Blacking out documents on Vimy Ridge? It really did seem excessive.

I can well imagine that if we sent 1000 or more troops and NATO did nothing that the Canadian public would be almost universally in support of withdrawing in 2009.

[Army Guy]

You know Manley came out and said that Harper should be straight forward with the public and let Canadians know what is going on?? Why doesn't he just come and say that as long as he is the PM, Canada will be doing no peacekeeping but will be doing seek and kill mode battles like by our neighbour to the south

don't be sucked into that myth when you describe peacekeeping, which does include offensive type operations....and if anything this Afgan operation would fit into peacemaking ....

So open your cheque books because this is going to be costly in lives but also remember these brave souls who will/has died for Canada's interest!!

Right now just under 2 cents of every dollar you pay into taxes is spent on Afgan in total...that includes our military and aid assistance....Costly no...And Yes lets not forget those brave souls "less we forget" but also remember they have voluteered, and continue to do so over and over again...The average Canadian should be asking themselves why ? Why do they continue to put thier lives on hold, risking everything for this cause...

Harper should do this so at least these young kids who are joining the military for a better education or can't find a JOB, will KNOW you will be see battle.

I don't know where the general public gets this notion that join the military and poof your in combat....NO one is forced to volunteer, there are no carear implications for refusing to go any where....those that do volunteer can opt out thru dozens of ways at any time.....

Every member that will go outside the wire goes thru high intensive training for atleast 6 months prior to any mission, regardless of how many tours you've completed...the training is very realistic, and very real...nobody that recieves this training would be under the assupmtion thats its going to be a cake walk or like some movie where nobody runs out of ammo and nobody gets hurt....

Our nations military is not a meat grinder where we have to trick people into joining, every young kid is very aware of what they will be asked to do....And if you go to the recruiter expecting to travel the worlds vacation spots your bubble will be burst by the recruiter...if not by him then by some old and cranky NCO like me...

You join the military and sign on to that unlimited liability , that is fully explained to everyone....YOU may be called upon to give your life for your country period.... how anyone after all that would think life is going to be gravy after that is beyond me....we don't need our PM telling us anything....

[james rahn]

I think the Manley Report is a fairly accurate assesment of what the situation is for Canada's role in Afghanistan. I think there is room for further debate, especially on the issue of NGO's operating there. But from groups that oppose our involvement, I would like to actually see a comprehensive alternative strategy from what Manley has proposed.

We can't just leave. If we do we break faith with those who died believing in the mission, and the Taliban wins.

Edited January 24, 2008 by james rahn

[jdobbin]

We can't just leave. If we do we break faith with those who died believing in the mission, and the Taliban wins.

And if we stay in the present circumstances (even if we commit more troops ourselves), the mission is doomed to failure according to Manley.

[james rahn]

And if we stay in the present circumstances (even if we commit more troops ourselves), the mission is doomed to failure according to Manley.

I don't think anyone is happy with the present circumstances. I'm not sure Manley said the mission was doomed to failure, but I think he said just leaving was the least preferable option.

What I think the future of the mission hinges on is the federal liberals. They're in a sticky situation. If they can manage to somehow support the findings of the Manley Report while still maintaining credibility as the official opposition (and not alienating their voter support base), then I think theres a good chance Canadians will still be in Afghanistan after 2009 in one capacity or another.

Edited January 24, 2008 by james rahn

[jdobbin]

I don't think anyone is happy with the present circumstances. I'm not sure Manley said the mission was doomed to failure, but I think he said just leaving was the least preferable option.

What I think the future of the mission hinges on is the federal liberals. They're in a sticky situation. If they can manage to somehow support the findings of the Manley Report while still maintaining credibility as the official opposition (and not alienating their voter support base), then I think theres a good chance Canadians will still be in Afghanistan after 2009 in one capacity or another.

Manley said exactly that.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=258936

If Canada's NATO allies fail to provide additional troops for southern Afghanistan, it will be an indication that the entire international mission has moved "too close to futility" and will justify Canada abdicating its responsibility for the region, John Manley said yesterday.

Mr. Manley, a former Liberal Cabinet minister, led the panel that this week delivered a report to Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Canada's role in Afghanistan. The report calls for Canada to remain committed to the NATO-led mission beyond its scheduled end in 2009, but only if other countries provide 1,000 additional troops to bolster security and training activities in the dangerous region surrounding Kandahar.

Mr. Manley said it would signal a "failure of the mission overall" if NATO was unable to find additional troops to meet Canada's requirements. He added that it would be irresponsible for the government to leave troops in the region without adequate support.

The words futility and failure were mentioned several times in regards to Canada's mission with the present situation.

If we don't get helicopters and NATO support, I doubt Canada will be there after 2009.

[james rahn]

I agree, but I still don't see the words "doomed to failure" anywhere in the report and that certainly doesn't seem like the thrust of it.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=255563

Edited January 25, 2008 by james rahn

[bush_cheney2004]

I read the entire report......it is less a policy direction resource than an inventory of the obvious. Refreshingly frank in some areas, it bloats a bit with self import for Canada and it's "pivotal" role in the development of Afghanistan vis-a-vis other NATO / non-NATO contributions.

[capricorn]

I read the entire report......it is less a policy direction resource than an inventory of the obvious.

The attention span of Canadian voters is so short, this compendium of facts on the Afghanistan mission will spell it out for them in manageable form. I suppose the major policy direction put forward is that the government press NATO for additional troops from other NATO countries or Canada pulls out of combat duties in Feb. 09.

Refreshingly frank in some areas, it bloats a bit with self import for Canada and it's "pivotal" role in the development of Afghanistan vis-a-vis other NATO / non-NATO contributions.

Not surprising since the report was constructed primarily for domestic consumption. Also, it may be that the authors wanted to strike a patriotic chord in the hopes of raising support for the mission.

[bush_cheney2004]

The attention span of Canadian voters is so short, this compendium of facts on the Afghanistan mission will spell it out for them in manageable form. I suppose the major policy direction put forward is that the government press NATO for additional troops from other NATO countries or Canada pulls out of combat duties in Feb. 09.

Perhaps, but it also (intentionally or not) indicts some of the policies from the past, from decisions on rotary-wing aircraft to Canada's own "uneven" force levels, scattered mission, and objectives. To threaten to take all the marbles and go home, or just back to Khandahar would find Canada company with the very NATO nations it criticizes now, and has been criticizing since the present deployment of 2500 troops. Pressing this issue is not a new policy direction.

Not surprising since the report was constructed primarily for domestic consumption. Also, it may be that the authors wanted to strike a patriotic chord in the hopes of raising support for the mission.

But it is less a rousing rally cry than odd introspective inventory from mostly external references and sources. Indidividual Canadian contributions are merely hinted at with names, and there is really no balanced presentation for reasons to bail by 2009 except that other NATO members are not ponying up the required troops to sustain gains from Canada's perspective.

The reader suffers through seeming apologies for the lack of classic "green-line" peacekeeping, as if that scenario would be well worth the cost for lives and dollars for long duration.

[capricorn]

To threaten to take all the marbles and go home, or just back to Khandahar would find Canada company with the very NATO nations it criticizes now, and has been criticizing since the present deployment of 2500 troops.

BC, this reasoning is way too deep for the average Canadian to fathom.

Pressing this issue is not a new policy direction.

Perhaps not but Canadians will see it as a new policy direction as it is being put forward by a non-partisan panel.

Indidividual Canadian contributions are merely hinted at with names, and there is really no balanced presentation for reasons to bail by 2009 except that other NATO members are not ponying up the required troops to sustain gains from Canada's perspective.

The majority of Canadians want out of the combat mission and are not interested in balance. They would welcome this "get tough" attitude with NATO sort of like, you know, Samson taking on Goliath. But even if NATO comes up with the extra troops and new helicopters are bought, I still think support for the mission will not increase. It's just the way Canada as a whole has become which is anti-military.

The reader suffers through seeming apologies for the lack of classic "green-line" peacekeeping, as if that scenario would be well worth the cost for lives and dollars for long duration.

Most Canadians haven't a clue what the real difference is between peacekeeping and combat. Their version of peacekeeping is soldiers handing out blankets and chocolate bars. Most are unaware that we had many peacekeeping related casualties. A few years in Darfur might open some eyes.

[bush_cheney2004]

The majority of Canadians want out of the combat mission and are not interested in balance. They would welcome this "get tough" attitude with NATO sort of like, you know, Samson taking on Goliath. But even if NATO comes up with the extra troops and new helicopters are bought, I still think support for the mission will not increase. It's just the way Canada as a whole has become which is anti-military.

Fair enough....but perhaps it takes different bait a la Kosovo and no ground troops. A war to love with no Canadian casualities, same as in Gulf War I. Still, it is hard to reconcile talk of NATO fairness and proportion next to "Canada must lead" (e.g. climate change).

Most Canadians haven't a clue what the real difference is between peacekeeping and combat. Their version of peacekeeping is soldiers handing out blankets and chocolate bars. Most are unaware that we had many peacekeeping related casualties. A few years in Darfur might open some eyes.

Fair enough...thank you for your enlightened perspective on past and present contributions by Canada.

[Peter F]

Perhaps, but it also (intentionally or not) indicts some of the policies from the past, from decisions on rotary-wing aircraft to Canada's own "uneven" force levels, scattered mission, and objectives. To threaten to take all the marbles and go home, or just back to Khandahar would find Canada company with the very NATO nations it criticizes now, and has been criticizing since the present deployment of 2500 troops. Pressing this issue is not a new policy direction.

But it is less a rousing rally cry than odd introspective inventory from mostly external references and sources. Indidividual Canadian contributions are merely hinted at with names, and there is really no balanced presentation for reasons to bail by 2009 except that other NATO members are not ponying up the required troops to sustain gains from Canada's perspective.

The reader suffers through seeming apologies for the lack of classic "green-line" peacekeeping, as if that scenario would be well worth the cost for lives and dollars for long duration.

Well said. We entered this mission without the wherewithall to support it and carry it through. Now we are short 1000 troops. Apparently we don't have 1000 troops available - wich means we underestimated our requirements by 30% - not to mention lack of rotary wings - or sufficient tanks - or appropriate APC's etc etc.

...But there the CAF is. I suspect that if the govt had committed 3500 troops we'd still be hearing about needing 1000 more.

This sounds very much like Pattons game of 'Rock soup'

[jdobbin]

I agree, but I still don't see the words "doomed to failure" anywhere in the report and that certainly doesn't seem like the thrust of it.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=255563

Take a look at the news conference that took place as the report was tabled and this is exactly what Manley was saying.

[james rahn]

"Helping to build a more stable, better governed Afghanistan with a

growing economy is, we believe, an achievable Canadian objective. But success is

not a certainty. The war in Afghanistan is complicated. The future there is

dangerous and can frustrate the most confident plan or prediction.

After our three months of study, however, it is our conviction that the

Recommendations in our Report—with their attached conditions—together carry a

reasonable probability of success. In the circumstances now prevailing, that is the

strongest assurance that can be credibly given. "

Page 39 of the Report.

He's not saying it's doomed to failure.

[jdobbin]

"Helping to build a more stable, better governed Afghanistan with a

growing economy is, we believe, an achievable Canadian objective. But success is

not a certainty. The war in Afghanistan is complicated. The future there is

dangerous and can frustrate the most confident plan or prediction.

After our three months of study, however, it is our conviction that the

Recommendations in our Report—with their attached conditions—together carry a

reasonable probability of success. In the circumstances now prevailing, that is the

strongest assurance that can be credibly given. "

Page 39 of the Report.

He's not saying it's doomed to failure.

And if you had watched the news conference after the report was tabled, Manley said the risk of failure was great if the conditions were not met.

When asked by reporters if the status quo was possible, Manley replied the mission was doomed to failure without help. That wasn't in the report. That was mentioned several times by those on the panel and can still be viewed on the CBC and CTV news websites.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story....7a0&k=86335

"This can't be seen as just another idle threat. We were asked to look carefully at this mission and we clearly came out believing that the mission itself is worthwhile," Manley told Canwest News Service in an interview. "But there is a risk, a serious risk of failure unless things happen."

He even went further to say the mission could be a disastrous failure without changes.

In his report, Manley came out shooting at the Harper Conservatives for trying to sugarcoat the controversial mission, his own party for playing politics, and some "delusional" NATO members for flirting with a disastrous failure in Afghanistan.

Edited January 25, 2008 by jdobbin