The Manley Report

[james rahn]

So if we get the help from NATO, is the mission still doomed?

[jdobbin]

So if we get the help from NATO, is the mission still doomed?

Manley was specific that unless the conditions he mentions are met, the mission is headed for failure. Even then, he said it is probably ten years of combat.

[Army Guy]

I think were are missing the main piont here. Helo's and 1000 troops is not the magical answer that will determine success in Afgan Yes it will certainly change things in the Canadian district , but it is one of many districts....

And for that to happen Canada needs to by part of that to put in it's addtional 1000 troops. To set the example, for others to follow....it would provide our own troops and the Afgan people addtional safety, allowing us to hold more ground and to deny the enemy the use of that ground and resources...

Getting all the NATO Countries more involved in the mission is the main piont... and to accomplish that there needs to be more than 25,000 additional troops....

This would allow NATO troops to do more than just put out fires as they appear, or reacting to what ever the Taliban throw at us , Thats what Guerrilla warfare is all about, keeping your opponet off balance and unprepared.... but to actually put boots on the ground to secure the entire country.

Once that is done then and only then can we have take advantage of our numbers and destroy these scumbags once and for all. putting us in a better postion to close the Pakistan border, to assist the Pakistan government in destroying thier problem areas. allowing us to Put an early close this mission or atleast scale it back...

[Keepitsimple]

Manley was specific that unless the conditions he mentions are met, the mission is headed for failure. Even then, he said it is probably ten years of combat.

You make it seem like "Doomed to Failure" was a black and white statement. You've acknowleged that it's not in the report but in "the TV interview". I watched the TV interview with Don Newman and it wasn't a black and white statement. He said Afghanistan was on a continuum with Utility at one end and Futility at the other. He said the 1000 troops would move the needle towards Utility and without them, the needle risks moving towards Futility. He said as events continue to unfold, Canada will have to assess how far towards Futility the needle moves and if it looks futile, then we have to get out to protect our boys. Any mention of "doomed to failure" was mentioned in the context of this continuum. Perhaps it's semantics but I think all of us should be willing to balance the possibility of "futility" with the more likelihood of "utility". Heck - even Iraq is showing reasonable signs of progress.

[jdobbin]

You make it seem like "Doomed to Failure" was a black and white statement. You've acknowleged that it's not in the report but in "the TV interview". I watched the TV interview with Don Newman and it wasn't a black and white statement. He said Afghanistan was on a continuum with Utility at one end and Futility at the other. He said the 1000 troops would move the needle towards Utility and without them, the needle risks moving towards Futility. He said as events continue to unfold, Canada will have to assess how far towards Futility the needle moves and if it looks futile, then we have to get out to protect our boys. Any mention of "doomed to failure" was mentioned in the context of this continuum. Perhaps it's semantics but I think all of us should be willing to balance the possibility of "futility" with the more likelihood of "utility". Heck - even Iraq is showing reasonable signs of progress.

I think the quotes I have shown are pretty black and white that doing nothing means the mission will end up in failure and this is why they suggested the troops come home in 2009 otherwise. The word failure was used several times in relation to the status quo. The report was presented as "Extension...with conditions" and those conditions were extremely important.

The Canadians Press report link specifically used the wording doomed to failure and attributed it to Manley in regards to doing nothing. The CP link is my reply to another poster in this thread.

At the moment, as Manley pointed out in the Newman interview, the cost of doing nothing in futility.

Edited January 25, 2008 by jdobbin

[M.Dancer]

Doomed to Failure.....Fobidden to Report.....

A pattern of fertilizing spin.....

[Topaz]

When you have "them vs us", it seems more of "us" are dying from the roadside bombs and with that kind of war, they lose no one but we are losing a lot of our guys this way. The NATO countries, especially Canada is spending billions to fight in a war and these others guys just make bombs and kill NATO troops on the road. Why is it so hard not to have today's techknowledge find these bombs?

[james rahn]

To address the point Topaz makes, I don't think the NATO forces are losing more lives than the Taliban. But those roadside bombs are doing more than taking lives. They are demoralizing the troops, and causing the NATO alliance to crack.

It isn't simply a matter of better weapons or technology. The Taliban have a greater resolve than we do. Historian Stephen Ambrose said the war on terror is not merely a war between the west and east or beween muslim extremists and the United States. Rather it is "...a war between modernity and medievalism."

We can't look at the political situation in Afghanistan (or what the Manley Report says about it, for that matter) with one eye closed. Leaving Afghanistan accomplishes nothing but certain failure; garnering greater support from NATO and staying is the only possibility we have of success.

When the iconic Twin Towers fell, a message was sent by the terrorists to the western world, and it was a simple message. The message was that they would gladly give their lives to reduce civilization's greatest achievements to rubble and ashes and wouldn't give a second thought to destroying anyone who stood in the way. (Incidentally, the youngest victim on 9/11 was a two year old child.)

So do we openly invite them to do that again, or do we do what we can to stop them?

Edited January 25, 2008 by james rahn

[jdobbin]

So do we openly invite them to do that again, or do we do what we can to stop them?

I think we have been doing that but we need help.

By the way, here is the Canadian Press report on what Manley said in regards to not getting any NATO help.

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/AL...5yR-PYnR12vpmKw

Manley declared Canada's fighting mission to be noble and justifiable, but also said it's doomed to fail unless other NATO countries shoulder a heavier burden.

The pressure is on NATO to come through and for Canada to follow the recommendations otherwise noted on helicopters.

Edited January 25, 2008 by jdobbin

[bush_cheney2004]

...The pressure is on NATO to come through and for Canada to follow the recommendations otherwise noted on helicopters.

OK...the former directly related to NATO mission effectiveness, and the latter related to reducing Canadian casualties and political bleeding back home. I think I am beginning to understand the spin cycle alluded to by Dancer...."failure" is more about Canada's mission and stated goal's than NATO's. Perhaps the two are not identical.

[james rahn]

OK...the former directly related to NATO mission effectiveness, and the latter related to reducing Canadian casualties and political bleeding back home. I think I am beginning to understand the spin cycle alluded to by Dancer...."failure" is more about Canada's mission and stated goal's than NATO's. Perhaps the two are not identical.

That sounds a little presumptuous and I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. If Canada's mission and stated goals are different than NATO's how are they different? If Canada doesn't get more support from NATO (as well as the needed helcopters) and withdraws from the region after Feb 2009, how is our situation in regards to future terrorist attacks any different from any other western nation?

[eyeball]

To address the point Topaz makes, I don't think the NATO forces are losing more lives than the Taliban. But those roadside bombs are doing more than taking lives. They are demoralizing the troops, and causing the NATO alliance to crack.

It isn't simply a matter of better weapons or technology. The Taliban have a greater resolve than we do. Historian Stephen Ambrose said the war on terror is not merely a war between the west and east or beween muslim extremists and the United States. Rather it is "...a war between modernity and medievalism."

We can't look at the political situation in Afghanistan (or what the Manley Report says about it, for that matter) with one eye closed. Leaving Afghanistan accomplishes nothing but certain failure; garnering greater support from NATO and staying is the only possibility we have of success.

When the iconic Twin Towers fell, a message was sent by the terrorists to the western world, and it was a simple message. The message was that they would gladly give their lives to reduce civilization's greatest achievements to rubble and ashes and wouldn't give a second thought to destroying anyone who stood in the way. (Incidentally, the youngest victim on 9/11 was a two year old child.)

So do we openly invite them to do that again, or do we do what we can to stop them?

I'm pretty certain they've lost plenty of two-year olds as well. Didn't they or their leader Bin Laden also say they'd leave us alone if we got out of their region and left them alone? As for the war between modernity and medievalism, why not just let evolution take its natural course? Oil?

[eyeball]

I have to take issue with the idea that Canada has to stay involved in Afghanistan to ensure that soldiers who were killed there didn't die in vain. If soldiers who are called into battle in the future insist on having a more solid mandate and reason for putting their lives at risk then these deaths should never be regarded as being in vain.

Our involvement seems to have been more about domestic politics than anything. Chretien involved our armed forces because he didn't want to be seen as being too anti-American. If the Conservatives had been in power on 9/11 their level of support would probably have been just as tepid because of their fear of being seen as too pro-American.

I can only imagine how little support Canadians would have for remaining in Afghanistan if we'd joined the fray in Iraq.

I think conscription would be the best way to ensure that everyone puts a lot more thought into how to avoid getting into a conflict in the first place.

[bush_cheney2004]

That sounds a little presumptuous and I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. If Canada's mission and stated goals are different than NATO's how are they different? If Canada doesn't get more support from NATO (as well as the needed helcopters) and withdraws from the region after Feb 2009, how is our situation in regards to future terrorist attacks any different from any other western nation?

They are different in the same way that other member nation's goals are different.....that is the point. I can't demonstrate a unified "NATO policy objective" that is supported by Canada's conditional wavering or any other nation's distraction, including the USA. Everybody has an excuse.

Your situation with regards to terrorists remains unchanged given either path, but one certainly increases the probabilities depending on which side of the fence you sit, stay or leave.

Rotary wing aircraft are Canada's responsibility....a shortfall known for years in several applications, not just medium airlift or ground attack. Hobbling capabilities had become a suspected Ottawa strategy while shifting more load on the remaining Canadian Forces who had to make do with less. PM Harper is trying to change this as the price of membership in the G-8 Club.