Blogger shows "Evidence That The Manley Report Was Predetermined&

[Moonlight Graham]

I think this deserves its own topic. Look at this regarding the Manley Report:

There’s quite the buzz in the blog world and on a local Ottawa radio station about blogger Scott Ross’s outing of the Manley panel’s alleged pre-arranged conclusions.

Mr. Ross (who I’m assuming is a left-leaning blogger) compared the newly released Manley panel report with John Manley’s contribution to Policy Options journal in October 2007 (before Mr. Manley was picked by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to lead the Afghanistan panel).

What Mr. Ross found is quite interesting in that there are almost direct passages taken from Mr. Manley’s previous writing in Policy Options which found their way into the Manley panel report. This is now being used by some to suggest Mr. Manley already had some of his conclusions ready to go even before listening to any other arguments/submissions to the contrary. Whatever the reason, it raises more than a few questions.

Here’s some examples from Mr. Ross’s blog:

“On page 4 of the Manley Report it states:


Whenever we asked Afghans what they thought ISAF or Canada should do, there was never any hesitation: “We want you to stay; we need you to stay.” Without the presence of the international security forces, they said, chaos would surely ensue.

Now compare that to what John Manley wrote three months ago, on page 12 in Policy Options:

Whenever we asked Afghans what they thought ISAF or Canada should do, they did not hesitate to say that we must stay. Without the presence of the international forces, chaos would surely ensue."

On his blog Mr. Ross raises the question of whether the Manley panel even asked Afghans what they thought of ISAF and Canada? Or was that just something John Manley had done for his Journal article, and then re-wrote almost word for word for the panel report? It's a good question that should be answered by Mr. Manley.

The similarity continues, according to Mr. Ross, as seen in this reference in the panel's report:

“The Panel learned early that we must be careful to define our expectations for success. Afghanistan is a deeply divided tribal society. It has been wracked by decades of war and is one of the poorest countries on Earth. There should be no thought that after five or even ten years of western military presence and aid, Afghanistan will resemble Europe or North America. But we came to the conviction that with patience, commitment, financial and other forms of assistance, there is a reasonable prospect that its people will be able to live together in relative peace and security, while living standards slowly improve.

Compare that to the Policy Options article Mr. Manley wrote three months ago:

“But in looking to the future, expectations must be reasonable. Afghanistan is a deeply divided tribal society, with divisions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims further complicating the mix. It has been racked by decades of war, and it remains the third-poorest country on earth. There should be no belief that after five or even ten years of Western military presence and aid, Afghanistan will resemble Kansas. With patience, commitment and some luck, it will resemble Afghanistan. But an Afghanistan in which people can live together in relative security.”

This, according to Mr. Ross, suggests that the Panel as a whole seems to have come to the almost exact same conclusion Mr. Manley did three months ago. Again, some major questions to be answered here. Was this a rigged game as some allege?

There are more similarities. You can read Mr. Ross’s blog “The Scott Ross” at:

http://thescottross.blogspot.com/

It should be fascinating to see what the fallout is on this one. Some folks are suggesting a pre-conceived bias on Mr. Manley’s part. Others are saying it’s no big deal.

Hmmmm.

[Keepitsimple]

Mr. Manley is a clear, concise writer. These statements are basic statements that set the stage for the document. To most people, they are self-evident. If the reasons for saying them haven't changed, why should the wording be totally different? Or have I missed something - do the Afghans now want ISAF to leave? Do they feel confident that they can handle the Taliban? Is Afghanistan not a tribal society? Should we actually expect Afghanistan to resemble Canada in 10 or 20 years?

Not to mention that Manley's report does not follow any of the four alternatives he was asked to evaluate.

But lets not let the facts get in the way..........and so another tinfoil hat conspiracy is launched.

[runningdog]

LOL, that's it, Cons, keep shooting yourselves in your big, fat, feet. Very fun to watch!!

[August1991]

Manley's (or rather the panel's) report stands on its own merits. And anyway, it's only one small piece of a much larger jigsaw puzzle.

I would be surprised if Manley's thinking about Afghanistan changed radically in three months. In any case, Harper asked the panel to make proposals in the report and they did.

[fellowtraveller]

Were the options available to Harper or Manley any different before, during or after this report?

Did any surprise options arise?

No, they didn't because the choices are relaitvely simple: do we stay or go, and why? If we stay, in what context? if we leave, when and how?