Afghanistan

[jdobbin]

The price of victory is never cheap.

And sometimes it comes at a political cost.

In a few weeks we'll see if Iraq has a political cost for the U.S. mid-terms.

In Canada, the last opinion poll gave a timetable. In 2009, Canada will have been in Afghanistan for seven years, two of them at the end of the pointed stick. I don't don't know that Canada will go for another two of being the pointed stick when dozens of NATO countries sit in their barracks safe from the fighting.

[Ricki Bobbi]

In a few weeks we'll see if Iraq has a political cost for the U.S. mid-terms.

Are you serious? Do you think the only reason the Republicans are going to lose is Iraq?

Let me lay it out for you. The Republicans had this certain Congressman who went so far as to sponsor legislation against child porn. Then this Congressman was found out to be sending sexually suggestive text messages to underage congressional pages. This information was released publicly within a month of the midterm elections.

Then it turns out that the Republican leadership knew about the text messages for over a year.

before this came out the Republicans were better than 50/50 to retain control of the house.

So why don't you give credit where it is due.

(Oh yeah, the now ex-congressman is Mark Foley.)

[jbg]

(Oh yeah, the now ex-congressman is Mark Foley.)

The story goes is he didn't like bookmarks; he liked his pages bent over.

[jdobbin]

Long before Foley appeared on the stage, Charlie Cook was reporting that the House of Reps could change hands and that Iraq was a leading cause of the souring.

There is a civil war in Iraq now. Decapitations happen every day. Four or five U.S. soldiers die a day.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15272979/

A poll released today says that the Foley scandal is not what is driving the election. It is Iraq.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/061015/...ics_election_dc

A war in another country can change the dynamics of an election at home. Bush won two previous elections based on his plan for Iraq and linking it to the war on terrorism. A majority now believe Iraq is not part of the war on terrorism. Some people here think that popularity for the war in Afghanistan will lead the Conservatives victory. I doubt that is true.

Pollsters in Canada have said that Canadians have by and large supported the mission in Afghanistan for these last five years. However, during the summer that support slipped and people indicated they believed that 2009 should be the end of the it. Harper has already talked of the mision going beyond that. At seven years, it would be the longest war Canada has ever been involved in its history.

[jdobbin]

CTV is reporting that the Senlis think tank is suggesting Canada take the lead in Afghanistan.

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

""The U.S.-led international community's narrow, homeland security interpretation of security has misdirected urgent development funds towards physical security-related objectives, to the extent that military spending outpaces development and reconstruction spending by a colossal 900 per cent."

Her report includes a chart showing that total military expenditures in Afghanistan were US$82.5 billion between 2002 and 2006. In comparison, development spending totaled US$7.3 billion over that period.

Afghans see foreigners as putting their own security needs ahead of those of Afghans, it said.

"The heavy-handed tactics the international military forces have used to pursue this 'security' has led to severe disillusionment with the international community, and a widespread and deepening distrust of the western world."

Focusing on security and counter-narcotics polices while ignoring extreme poverty is destroying nation-building efforts and aiding the Taliban's revival, it said."

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/afghan_civilians_killed

The deaths of civilians in the last several days appears to motivated the Karzai government to comment on it. I don't know the details from this story but it certainly can't help win support from the population when there is no way to distinguish civilian from Taliban deaths.

[jdobbin]

Released through Freedom of Information Act...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/afghan_future

Things don't look so good in Afghanistan from this perspective.

""The threat posed by the narco-economy to the efforts to rebuild is so overwhelming that without doing something about that economy first, the Afghani government could be completely and utterly overrun by the Taliban.""

In further news, a Canadian soldier was seriously injured by a land mine.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/061216/...an_cda_landmine

[mikedavid00]

Released through Freedom of Information Act...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/afghan_future

Things don't look so good in Afghanistan from this perspective.

Ok. I recommend everyone click on the ad on this page from GM.

You will whitness what's to come as far as internet advertising goes.

[jdobbin]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/world/as...r=1&oref=slogin

New York Times continues to focus on how Pakistan is supporting the Taliban.

[madmax]

Post deleted, I just realized the dates above .

[scribblet]

Well, NAO maybe boosting troops etc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6300855.stm

Nato discusses Afghanistan boost Nato troops patrol in Afghanistan

The US is promising to up its campaign against the Taleban

Nato foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels to discuss stepping up the campaign in Afghanistan, in advance of an expected offensive from the Taleban.

The US says it will pour an extra $10.6bn (£5.4bn) into its Afghan effort and that 3,200 troops due to end their tour will remain an extra four months.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged Nato members to do more to help.

[weaponeer]

US Army is extending a brigade, may even be sending an additional one I have heard.

[weaponeer]

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/...reut/index.html

it's official, Karzai's a dad!!!!

[jdobbin]

US Army is extending a brigade, may even be sending an additional one I have heard.

Here's what Stars and Stripes is saying.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?sectio...4&article=43110

They are predicting a violent spring.

[weaponeer]

Finding out your extending is not fun. Wonder if it is the SC NG brigade...

[weaponeer]

http://www.army.mil/

Here's whose staying & going..... Us Army wise....

[jdobbin]

CBC gets latest information under freedom of information act.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/28/...objectives.html

Months ago I said that CF-18s would probably be going. I was told the planes were useless for Afghanistan. This paper says it is likely.

I also said that pressure would start early on extending the mission. This information pretty much says "long term" commitment.

[Jean_Poutine]

CBC gets latest information under freedom of information act.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/28/...objectives.html

Months ago I said that CF-18s would probably be going. I was told the planes were useless for Afghanistan. This paper says it is likely.

I also said that pressure would start early on extending the mission. This information pretty much says "long term" commitment.

O'Connor was responding to questions in Parliament about newspaper reports that Canada had agreed to send six CF-18s to NATO if the Alliance asked for them.

"There has been no recommendation to deploy CF-18s," O'Connor said, "They will not be deployed unless there is an operational requirement."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/31/canada-cf18s.html

It's contingency planning.

There are also plans to send additional M-777 Howitzers and CP-140s for surveillance.

A-10s and Apache attack helicopters would probably be better for the job in Afghanistan, but Canada doesn't have those so.... Even the Dutch -- who the Globe & Mail, and subsequently many readers, praise for having a more peaceful approach -- are using Apache attack helicopters in Afghanistan. The Globe, of course, made no mention of the Dutch using Apaches in that article.

[jdobbin]

It's contigency planning.

There are also plans to send additional M-777 Howitzers and CP-140s for surveillance.

A-10s and Apache attack helicopters would probably be better for the job in Afghanistan, but Canada doesn't have those so.... Even the Dutch -- who the Globe & Mail, and subsequently many readers, praise for having a more peaceful approach -- are using Apache attack helicopters in Afghanistan. The Globe, of course, made no mention of the Dutch using Apaches in that article.

The reason they didn't mention it is because they have mentioned it in the past. Even the CBC has reported the Dutch using Apaches.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/19/c...ii-tuesday.html

[weaponeer]

The Dutch army is also supporting the Canadian Battle Group with big, heavy PH2000 SPH.

jdobbin,

Who in Gods nAme ever told you the CF18's are not good for Afghanistan?? They are an excellent CAS platform... You got some bad dope there. Please don't tell me I am wrong, fighter operations is my #1 business:)

As for the CP140, NO THEY ARE NOT GOING TO A-STAN. We barely have enough to patrol the Canadian coast line. It was looked at & shelved.

Yes, more M777s may go. We only have a few over there, not even enough to propery support as full BG.

[jdobbin]

The Dutch army is also supporting the Canadian Battle Group with big, heavy PH2000 SPH.

jdobbin,

Who in Gods nAme ever told you the CF18's are not good for Afghanistan?? They are an excellent CAS platform... You got some bad dope there. Please don't tell me I am wrong, fighter operations is my #1 business:)

As for the CP140, NO THEY ARE NOT GOING TO A-STAN. We barely have enough to patrol the Canadian coast line. It was looked at & shelved.

Yes, more M777s may go. We only have a few over there, not even enough to propery support as full BG.

I got shouted down several months ago in these forums for suggesting they might be sent to Afghanistan. Most of the experts here said the plane was useless for that country. I thought differently but I'm not an military expert and could only go by what the technical specs of the plane were.

[weaponeer]

jdobbin,

I trained a few years ago as a JTAC, Joint Terminal Attack Controller, the guy who calls in the airstikes, close support for the troops. The F18 is an awsome close air support (CAS) platform. The USMC uses their F18's for this mission. It is not an Apache, Cobra, A10 or Harrier, but is does the job. The Dutch Airforce currently has F16's in Khandahar.

The F18s practice CAS everyday in Cold Lake & Bagotville. As for deployment, all Canada told NATO was that we had up to 6 for their use if required. There was some talk about deploying them to Latvia to hold air defence alert, to replace Norwegion F16's that were doing that task. More to follow I guess.....

[jdobbin]

jdobbin,

I trained a few years ago as a JTAC, Joint Terminal Attack Controller, the guy who calls in the airstikes, close support for the troops. The F18 is an awsome close air support (CAS) platform. The USMC uses their F18's for this mission. It is not an Apache, Cobra, A10 or Harrier, but is does the job. The Dutch Airforce currently has F16's in Khandahar.

The F18s practice CAS everyday in Cold Lake & Bagotville. As for deployment, all Canada told NATO was that we had up to 6 for their use if required. There was some talk about deploying them to Latvia to hold air defence alert, to replace Norwegion F16's that were doing that task. More to follow I guess.....

I pointed out here that the Dutch where using the F-16 for their air support but that didn't seem to hold any sway with the people who said the F-18 was not capable and would never go overseas.

[Jean_Poutine]

jdobbin,

I trained a few years ago as a JTAC, Joint Terminal Attack Controller, the guy who calls in the airstikes, close support for the troops. The F18 is an awsome close air support (CAS) platform. The USMC uses their F18's for this mission. It is not an Apache, Cobra, A10 or Harrier, but is does the job. The Dutch Airforce currently has F16's in Khandahar.

The F18s practice CAS everyday in Cold Lake & Bagotville. As for deployment, all Canada told NATO was that we had up to 6 for their use if required. There was some talk about deploying them to Latvia to hold air defence alert, to replace Norwegion F16's that were doing that task. More to follow I guess.....

I pointed out here that the Dutch where using the F-16 for their air support but that didn't seem to hold any sway with the people who said the F-18 was not capable and would never go overseas.

That reminds me of a critic I saw on CTV commenting about the decision to send tanks. He argued that the Leopards are old, and that sending them is a bad idea because they don't have the armour that modern tanks have. First, it's not like they're going up against an army with cutting edge tanks. Second, a Leopard has better armour than the vehicles that were already in use, but they shouldn't send it because it's not good enough? What kind of logic is that?

Speaking of Leopards, I just read an article about how the government is now racing to get air conditioner upgrades for them before the summer hits. They expect that the temperature inside the tanks could reach 65C without air con. That's after they just spent about $200 million on upgrades.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/29/tanks-cooling.html

Canada had about 120 Leopards originally, but has about 60 left, and if they replaced them with about 100 new tanks, it would probably cost about $500 million. Abrams go for about $5 million each, and Leopard 2s can be had for much cheaper. So, the cost of all the upgrades would cover about half, or more, of the cost of just replacing them altogether. Even with the upgrades, they're only expected to remain in service until 2010. So, wouldn't it make more sense just to spend $500 million now and give the military new equipment while saving money in the long run? My guess is that newer tanks include air con too.

[jdobbin]

Speaking of Leopards, I just read an article about how the government is now racing to get air conditioner upgrades for them before the summer hits. They expect that the temperature inside the tanks could reach 65C without air con. That's after they just spent about $200 million on upgrades.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/29/tanks-cooling.html

Canada had about 120 Leopards originally, but has about 60 left, and if they replaced them with about 100 new tanks, it would probably cost about $500 million. Abrams go for about $5 million each, and Leopard 2s can be had for much cheaper. So, the cost of all the upgrades would cover about half, or more, of the cost of just replacing them altogether. Even with the upgrades, they're only expected to remain in service until 2010. So, wouldn't it make more sense just spend $500 million now and give the military new equipment while saving money in the long run? My guess is that newer tanks include air con too.

I saw the news about the air conditioning. Even a fast track of purchases would still not get new tanks to the troops before 2010.

The Australians are just getting the M1s and they ordered them long ago.

Until recently, the military brass itself wasn't sure they wanted tanks compared with other vehicles out there. As the war proved more deadly, the Leopards have come in handy.

O'Connor has not said he doesn't intend to extend the mission beyond 2009, I think that the military needs to re-evaluate what equipment it needs for the battles that are increasingly insurgencies. I think that recruitment has to take priority as well for the next several years. It won't be enough to have new equipment but the people in place to make them work. I suspect we have a lot of retirements coming from both active and reserves and they need to be replaced soon.