Afghanistan

[madmax]

A war, any war you enter into, you should enter into to win. If you believe in your cause so much you are willing to fight, you have to win. You win wars with OVERWHELMING FORCE!!

Then you treat them according to the Geneva Convention, you pacify & befriend them, as we did with Germany & Japan after WW2.

It works. No half measures...

I think you have clearly presented conditions that are required to achieve victory.

Some here in these thread have been laughed at for mentioning such measures. However, other posters here whom I disagree with on many aspects of this campaign would also disagree with some of your proposals above.

Note how many things have you listed, that have not been done in two concurrent campaigns.

There are many in the government and the military south of the border whom would agree with your above comments.

[Jean_Poutine]

I know there is no love loss between the Turks and Kurds, when is this foolishness going to end.

This seems easy to me, we'll play over here, you play over there, we'll stay out of each others way. Nonsense.

Here's some good Afghan info ref the Canadian army & tanks, looks like we are pulling some Leo's outta mothballs...

http://www.strathconas.ca/index2.php?subac...rt_from=&ucat=&

From what I've read, they have something like 60 or so Leopards left, and when I first heard that they were deploying some to Afghanistan, I thought they should have just sent all of them over. Given that Afghanistan will be the focus of Canadian military operations for the forseeable future, may as well have them there. Down the road, they could give them to the Afghan army, when they're ready, to help equip them, and buy new tanks for the Canadian military. That would also save the cost of bringing the tanks back to Canada.

Training more people to use tanks and deploying more of them should translate into the government seeing the value of maintaining the capability, which is good news for the military.

[jbg]

My pet theory of warfare, at least in modern times, is that is the only way to win a war. Attempting to fight in stutter-stop manner, i.e. fight, negotiate, wait for intermediaries, etc. is unproductive, and winds up with greater human costs than doing it fast, even if that brings more collateral damage.

So, a war should be fought with the intent to eliminate all of the population to avoid pacification later on?

Not necessarily. The war has to be fought in such a way as to make believers out of them. For the Muslims, for example, if many Imams and teachers in madrassas were knocked off, that might do the job.

[jdobbin]

Not necessarily. The war has to be fought in such a way as to make believers out of them. For the Muslims, for example, if many Imams and teachers in madrassas were knocked off, that might do the job.

I don't know that the solution would be that simple.

[weaponeer]

Tanks,

The Canadian Army currently has 66 Leopard C2 tanks, 2 Squadrons (30 tanks) at Edmonton with the Lord Starthcona's Horse, and the rest at the Armoured school in Gagetown NB. LSH is getting a third Sqn, another 15 tanks from the school to add to the regt.

The LSH sent B Sqn to Afghanistan, 15 Leos, plus support vehicles. A Sqn is still in Edmonton with their 15 tanks working up to replace B Sqn, and as you have read C Sqn will convert from a recon role to tanks with 15 more and eventually replace A sqn later in the year.

War is a very cruel and messy business, I don't have to tell any of you that, your all smart, you know. But if you get into one, you have to win, there's no other real choice. The fast you win the fewer the people (both sides) die. Get it overwith fast and furious. Overwhelming force, completely overpower the enemy, it will be over quickly. despense with the "unpleasentness" fast.

As for Iraq, I am NO expert, I have no idea what should be done. Perhap builda time machine and start over. If it were only that easy.

[Catchme]

After this bit of information, The Timesonline produces a disturbing report which would indicate that things just aren't as peachy in Afghanistan as some would have us believe.

SENIOR defence sources have voiced fears that an imminent push by the United States in Afghanistan will force British soldiers to adopt an overly aggressive approach that will damage relations with ordinary Afghans and play into the hands of the Taliban...

“There has been a lot of talk with a new counter-insurgency manual they have just issued of a change in the US position, but the truth is they just don’t get it,” a senior British source said.

“You have at all costs to keep the local population on your side or you have no chance of winning.”

http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/

The Blogger Dave is a former military personal and he cover the situation arising with a good deal of insight and skepticism.

He had this to say about the CPC stating they wanted more military personal in cites.

The Conservatives are proposing to add yet another battalion-strength unit of anywhere from 500 to 1000 people in each of those cities. Where are the people going to come from?

This "leak" has little or nothing to do with the Canadian Forces actual strength. This is an attempt to secure a military vote and offer a bone to the cities where the Conservatives are hoping to gather a few more votes by suggesting they are providing something. However, given the concentration of reserve units in those cities and regions now, you can bet that they will point at existing units, renamed or adjunctly identified (territorial battalion), and declare that they fulfilled their promise. In short, they're lying now and they're going to lie in the future...

The single most important factor to consider however, it that none of this is going to actually happen. It's a pipe-dream. The troops in the cities is more smoke and mirrors from Harper's PR machine. Those cheering the idea will be disappointed. Those questioning the plan can safely ignore it.

It's not a plan; it's an advertising campaign.

http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/200...or-bivouac.html

[GostHacked]

Down the road, they could give them to the Afghan army, when they're ready, to help equip them, and buy new tanks for the Canadian military. That would also save the cost of bringing the tanks back to Canada.

Give them tanks away? Sell them to the Afgan army yes,(if they could afford them in the first place) but not give. If that was your proposal, it is cheaper to transport the tanks back to Canada.

[Jean_Poutine]

Down the road, they could give them to the Afghan army, when they're ready, to help equip them, and buy new tanks for the Canadian military. That would also save the cost of bringing the tanks back to Canada.

Give them tanks away? Sell them to the Afgan army yes,(if they could afford them in the first place) but not give. If that was your proposal, it is cheaper to transport the tanks back to Canada.

A Leopard 2, which is a $6 million dollar tank, can be had for as little as $350,000 because of Cold War surplus. How much do you think you'd get for a Leopard 1? It cost $1 million to transport each tank to Afghanistan, and it stands to reason that it would cost the same to bring them back. Would you rather spend $1 million to bring back an old tank that is due to be replaced by 2010, or spend $350,000 on a better tank?

If the Afghan army is not properly eqipped and trained to do the job themselves, our troops will either have to keep doing the job for them or leave the country without completing the objective. Therefore, while a lot of money is being spent on military operations carried out by NATO forces and on development, money should also be spent on equipping the Afghan army. The US recognized this, and they're spending the bulk of the $10 billion in new funds on this. Canada is spending about $3 billion on military operations in Afghanistan and another $1 billion on development; therefore, the cost of the Leopard 1s is peanuts in comparison and it's a cost effective way to help Afghanistan.

By way of comparison, Canada is trying out GPS guided rounds for Howitzers that cost $150,000 each. If a Leopard 2 can be had for $350,000, surely the cost of two GPS rounds would be equal to a Leopard 1, and once they're fired, that's it, but the tanks can help provide security even after Canadian forces are gone.

[Catchme]

Down the road, they could give them to the Afghan army, when they're ready, to help equip them, and buy new tanks for the Canadian military. That would also save the cost of bringing the tanks back to Canada.

Give them tanks away? Sell them to the Afgan army yes,(if they could afford them in the first place) but not give. If that was your proposal, it is cheaper to transport the tanks back to Canada.

How nice, let's start arming countries now, there are too many bad examples of that running around the world already courtesy of the USA, we need not start down the same road.

Well, it is for certain the war lords in Karzi's government could afford the tanks, after all they control all the opium production and wouldn't it be nice for them to have their own personal tanks?!

And great thinking on the part of the military industrila complex. GW gives 10 billion to the Afghans so they can buy military equipment, from the companies they, the Bushes et al have stocks in or own outright.

They are bleeding regular good Americans dry, and lining their own pockets with it. Truly amazing that some people are buying into the fantasy.

[jdobbin]

Frictions are growing between the British and Americans over Afghanistan approach.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0205/p99s01-duts.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1324282.ece

As an American general takes charge of NATO forces in Afghanistan, senior British military officers are voicing concern that an imminent push by the US will force British troops into an "overly aggressive" posture that will play into the hands of the Taliban.

Meanwhile, Canada will help Kandahar build a madrassa.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...4895c9d&k=32145

[White Doors]

Why shouldn't we help the Afghan Army to equip itself?

[Army Guy]

A good read.

Afgan

[jdobbin]

A good read.

Afgan

I have seen the article before. Maloney says that the blame game shouldn't be played and yet he plays it in the article by attacking Clinton and the Europeans.

There are some interesting points raised nevertheless. It doesn't necessarily solve the problem though.

[Jean_Poutine]

Frictions are growing between the British and Americans over Afghanistan approach.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0205/p99s01-duts.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1324282.ece

As an American general takes charge of NATO forces in Afghanistan, senior British military officers are voicing concern that an imminent push by the US will force British troops into an "overly aggressive" posture that will play into the hands of the Taliban.

From your link:

Gen. Dan McNeill, is expected to "to take a harder line with militants than his predecessor, [british] Gen. David Richards." The change comes a few days after a peace deal Gen. Richards brokered with the Taliban in Musa Qala fell apart when 200 fighters overran the southern town.

The enemy considers appeasement as a sign of weakness, and it only emboldens them. You need only look at how effective Pakistan has been with deal making in the provinces along the Afghan border to see that. While the British military is among the best in the world and I have a great deal of respect for them, it's the "peace deal" with the Taliban that is in error not the American preparation for spring attacks.

By way of comparison, what do you think keeps crime relatively low in Canada? It would be nice to think that it's because there are so many honest citizens, but the reality is that there is a police force ready to enforce laws. People know that there are consequences to breaking laws, and generally speaking, people that are willing to break the law only do so if they think they can get away with it. Likewise, they have to make it clear to anyone wishing to undermine progress in Afghanistan that there will be consequences. To do that with credibility requires force, and if you're not willing to do that, it only gives the people that are creating the problems confidence that they can get away with it.

"We have made our own Guantanamo for the foreign soldiers," said Mullah Alah Nazar, a local Taliban commander also known as Haji Nika. "They are trapped."

It sounds like the Taliban hired Baghdad Bob. There are no Americans in Baghdad!

Meanwhile, Canada will help Kandahar build a madrassa.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...4895c9d&k=32145

Again, from your link:

Unlike madrassas in northern Pakistan seen by the West as breeding grounds for fire-breathing extremism, the Afghan model would be based on Hanafi, a less fundamentalist form of Islam.

Many of the hard-core Taliban commanders that Canadian troops faced on the battlefield last year were educated in Pakistan, in Saudi-financed madrassas that teach Wahhabism, a stern and rigid form of Islam.

With the absence of religious education in Afghanistan, many parents have been forced over the years to send their children to Pakistan. Some end up in fundamentalist madrassas where the curriculum is more about making war on infidels than on education.

The key to making madrassas non-threatening is in the curriculum.

Ministry officials intend to travel to Jordan later this year to see what the Jordanians are doing right that can be drafted into what would be taught at the new school in Kandahar, the senior Afghan education official said.

So, do you want them to go to fundamentalist schools in Pakistan which you have no control over, or would you rather a moderate alternative that you can keep an eye on?

[jdobbin]

The enemy considers appeasement as a sign of weakness, and it only emboldens them. You need only look at how effective Pakistan has been with deal making in the provinces along the Afghan border to see that. While the British military is among the best in the world and I have a great deal of respect for them, it's the "peace deal" with the Taliban that is in error not the American preparation for spring attacks.

By way of comparison, what do you think keeps crime relatively low in Canada? It would be nice to think that it's because there are so many honest citizens, but the reality is that there is a police force ready to enforce laws. People know that there are consequences to breaking laws, and generally speaking, people that are willing to break the law only do so if they think they can get away with it. Likewise, they have to make it clear to anyone wishing to undermine progress in Afghanistan that there will be consequences. To do that with credibility requires force, and if you're not willing to do that, it only gives the people that are creating the problems confidence that they can get away with it.

Unlike madrassas in northern Pakistan seen by the West as breeding grounds for fire-breathing extremism, the Afghan model would be based on Hanafi, a less fundamentalist form of Islam.

Many of the hard-core Taliban commanders that Canadian troops faced on the battlefield last year were educated in Pakistan, in Saudi-financed madrassas that teach Wahhabism, a stern and rigid form of Islam.

With the absence of religious education in Afghanistan, many parents have been forced over the years to send their children to Pakistan. Some end up in fundamentalist madrassas where the curriculum is more about making war on infidels than on education.

The key to making madrassas non-threatening is in the curriculum.

So, do you want them to go to fundamentalist schools in Pakistan which you have no control over, or would you rather a moderate alternative that you can keep an eye on?

I made the post to outline the differences in approaches by the forces there and how they are in conflict.

As for the madrassa, I can see what the goal is but I can also see it being turned against Canadians.

[Jean_Poutine]

As for the madrassa, I can see what the goal is but I can also see it being turned against Canadians.

If that happens, it's much easier to shut down than schools that are on the other side of the border.

[jdobbin]

If that happens, it's much easier to shut down than schools that are on the other side of the border.

I'm not sure how easy it would be to track down where the source of violence is taught. Even now, there are mosques in Afghanistan that could be a source of trouble but politically, they are hard to shut down.

[Catchme]

Here is some info on things occuring in Afghanistan, and our Canadian military people are now following the US style of actions in Afghanistan and indeed speaking as if the US Military is a wonderful thing in Afghanistan.

Afghan Massacre -The Convoy of Death tells of the horrific forced journey undertaken by thousands of prisoners who surrendered to America’s Afghan allies after the siege of Konduz.

Bundled into containers, the lucky ones were shot within minutes. The rest suffered an appalling road trip lasting up to four days, clawing at the skin of their fellow prisoners as they licked perspiration and even drank blood from open wounds.

Up to 3,000 now lie buried in a mass grave, but this was not a simple matter of Afghans killing Afghans.

Afghan Massacre -The Convoy of Death tells of how American special forces took control of the operation, re-directed the containers carrying the living and dead into the desert and stood by as survivors were shot and buried.

And it details how the Pentagon lied to the world in order to cover up its role in the greatest atrocity of the entire Afghan War. This is the documentary they did not want you to see.

Afghan Massacre -The Convoy of Death was produced over ten months in extremely dangerous circumstances: eyewitnesses were threatened, the film crew went into hiding and our researcher was savagely beaten to within an inch of his life.

http://www.acftv.com/news/article.asp?news_id=134

[jdobbin]

Canada to buy more tanks from Germany for Afghanistan.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/070210/canada/germany_canada

Berlin confirmed reports that Canada is to buy German Leopard tanks to equip its forces serving with the NATO multinational force in Afghanistan.

ADVERTISEMENT

The defence ministry said it was examining a request to that effect from Ottawa, confirming a report in the magazine Der Spiegel due to appear Monday which says that 80 A4 tanks could be bought from the German army reserve.

"The ministry is in principle favourable to this request," a spokesman told AFP.

It sounds like we are intending on being in Afghanistan a whole lot longer than 2009 when the first of these tanks might be several months away.

[madmax]

Here is some info on things occuring in Afghanistan, and our Canadian military people are now following the US style of actions in Afghanistan and indeed speaking as if the US Military is a wonderful thing in Afghanistan.

I disagree with this comment.

Afghan Massacre -The Convoy of Death tells of the horrific forced journey undertaken by thousands of prisoners who surrendered to America’s Afghan allies after the siege of Konduz.

Bundled into containers, the lucky ones were shot within minutes. The rest suffered an appalling road trip lasting up to four days, clawing at the skin of their fellow prisoners as they licked perspiration and even drank blood from open wounds.

I have this documentary in my personal library.

Dostum is a war criminal. Nothing new there. Also the Taliban used such barbaric practices.

[Jean_Poutine]

Canada to buy mote tanks from Germany for Afghanistan.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/070210/canada/germany_canada

Berlin confirmed reports that Canada is to buy German Leopard tanks to equip its forces serving with the NATO multinational force in Afghanistan.

ADVERTISEMENT

The defence ministry said it was examining a request to that effect from Ottawa, confirming a report in the magazine Der Spiegel due to appear Monday which says that 80 A4 tanks could be bought from the German army reserve.

"The ministry is in principle favourable to this request," a spokesman told AFP.

It sounds like we are intending on being in Afghanistan a whole lot longer than 2009 when the first of these tanks might be several months away.

First, that's good news for the military. Second, it doesn't necessarily translate into being in Afghanistan longer.

The A4 is the most common version, and thus the most affordable, but the Leopard 2 is modular so they can easily upgrade it. For example:

Norway, 52 Leopard 2 A4NO (currently replacing the old Leopard 1 tanks with Leopard 2. The Leopard 2A4 will be upgraded to A5 standard)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2

The German Army is upgrading 225 2A5 tanks to 2A6 configuration, the first of which was delivered in March 2001.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/index.html

On July 7, 2004, the first mine-protected Leopard A6M were handed over to German and Swedish Armies at Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMG) facilities in Munich, Germany. KMG will supply the retrofit kits to Swedish industry, while Germany's Leopard 2 tanks will be upgraded to the A6M standard locally by KMG. The retrofit kit includes add-on armor, new seat system and re-stowage arrangements.

http://www.deagel.com/Main-Battle-Tanks/Le...a000451004.aspx

If Norway is upgrading A4s to A5s and Germany is upgrading A5s to A6s, it stands to reason that Canada can upgrade A4s to A6s. Further, with the upgrade kit available to bring the A6 up to A6M spec, they could upgrade the A4s right up to the most current version.

If they have problems getting A6Ms, they may want to look for some available standard A6s and grab some upgrade kits to bring them up to A6M spec. From what I've read, the A6 already has mine protection and air conditioning. The A6M has improved mine protection, and considering that that's a major threat in Afghanistan, I can understand why they would want the best.

As for extending the mission beyond 2009, it's possible, but I think you're reading too far into it. Just because they're interested in better equipment doesn't mean they plan on using it longer. The Canadian forces should have the best equipment possible regardless of whether or not Canada is even in Afghanistan.

Having said that, I don't think 2009 should be carved in stone, nor should one have blind support for the mission. I think support for the mission should be contingent on three things:

1) international support and justification

2) ensuring that the forces are well equipped and supplied

3) troop morale

Now let's unpack that:

While there may be disagreements on how to approach the mission in Afghanistan, there is a solid consensus for the mission. There are 37 nations involved in the military operation with NATO control and UN authorization. Therefore, you have international support.

As for justification, it's a response to an attack rather than a preemptive attack, and it helps Afghans in the process. Therefore, you have justification.

While Canada didn't exactly go into it well equipped, which is typical if you look at Canadian involvement in conflicts historically, effort has been made to get better equipment, and that, as you point out, is continuing.

If the first two conditions are met, it's likely that troop morale will be good, but if not, it's important to look at why there are problems, and address them. From what I've read, troop morale is good.

If those conditions continue to be in place beyond 2009, I don't see the reason to pull the plug simply because the calendar flips to 2009. Simply going by a date and ignoring everything else is not a reasoned approach.

[Jean_Poutine]

Here is some info on things occuring in Afghanistan, and our Canadian military people are now following the US style of actions in Afghanistan and indeed speaking as if the US Military is a wonderful thing in Afghanistan.

I disagree with this comment.

Afghan Massacre -The Convoy of Death tells of the horrific forced journey undertaken by thousands of prisoners who surrendered to America’s Afghan allies after the siege of Konduz.

Bundled into containers, the lucky ones were shot within minutes. The rest suffered an appalling road trip lasting up to four days, clawing at the skin of their fellow prisoners as they licked perspiration and even drank blood from open wounds.

I have this documentary in my personal library.

Dostum is a war criminal. Nothing new there. Also the Taliban used such barbaric practices.

You keep a collection of documentaries too?

I keep a database of all the documentaries, interviews, speeches, etc I have in my collection. That way I can simply type in the subject or persons name and get a list of everything available. I can also pull up a list of sources with a count of how much is available from each source in descending order.

I was inspired by Noam Chomsky, but he's old school and does it by paper. Later, I found out that Francis Fukuyama does it too, but by computer.

I've seen the video mentioned a long time ago, but I don't have a copy of it. However, I do have the PBS documentary called Return of the Taliban that's been mentioned here - along with a dozen other PBS docs.

Also, there's a documentary that CBC calls "On Tour with the Taliban" that's been mentioned on these forums. It originally aired on a show called Dispatches on Channel 4, and there are two parts, but it looks like CBC is only airing one part. The original name of it is Meeting the Taliban, and the other part is called Fighting the Taliban. I have both.

In Fighting the Taliban, Sean Langan travels with British forces in Helmand, and what I found surprising about it is that the British vehicles, at least those shown in the documentary, have virtually no protection. They have open tops so there's nothing to protect the gunner from incoming fire. The doc also shows how British forces have to wait for Chinooks because they're in such high demand.

[jdobbin]

deleted.

[jdobbin]

As for extending the mission beyond 2009, it's possible, but I think you're reading too far into it. Just because they're interested in better equipment doesn't mean they plan on using it longer. The Canadian forces should have the best equipment possible regardless of whether or not Canada is even in Afghanistan.

Having said that, I don't think 2009 should be carved in stone, nor should one have blind support for the mission. I think support for the mission should be contingent on three things:

1) international support and justification

2) ensuring that the forces are well equipped and supplied

3) troop morale

Now let's unpack that:

While there may be disagreements on how to approach the mission in Afghanistan, there is a solid consensus for the mission. There are 37 nations involved in the military operation with NATO control and UN authorization. Therefore, you have international support.

As for justification, it's a response to an attack rather than a preemptive attack, and it helps Afghans in the process. Therefore, you have justification.

While Canada didn't exactly go into it well equipped, which is typical if you look at Canadian involvement in conflicts historically, effort has been made to get better equipment, and that, as you point out, is continuing.

If the first two conditions are met, it's likely that troop morale will be good, but if not, it's important to look at why there are problems, and address them. From what I've read, troop morale is good.

If those conditions continue to be in place beyond 2009, I don't see the reason to pull the plug simply because the calendar flips to 2009. Simply going by a date and ignoring everything else is not a reasoned approach.

I don't see there being consensus on the mission. It is the reason that the U.S. has been criticizing NATO all this week. Holding back troops and limiting their activities shows lack of consensus.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/02/11...g.ap/index.html

The justification will only hold if there is marked improvement in Afghanistan being able to take care of itself.

And let's not forget about the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Pakistan. Only the U.S. can deal with them and they haven't.

As far s reading too much on extension, there is already talk this week that the NATO meeting should be looking at commitment beyond 2009.

[Jean_Poutine]

I don't see there being consensus on the mission. It is the reason that the U.S. has been criticizing NATO all this week. Holding back troops and limiting their activities shows lack of consensus.

The difference of opinion is not in whether or not they should be there, but in how they handle the mission. There is a consensus for being there. If other countries don't agree with being there, they wouldn't be there, just as they are not in Iraq. Moreover, France has had seven opportunities to veto resolutions that extend UN authorization of the mission, yet they haven't.

The justification will only hold if there is marked improvement in Afghanistan being able to take care of itself.

And let's not forget about the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Pakistan. Only the U.S. can deal with them and they haven't.

No, the justification will remain as long as there is a threat to deal with. What is in question is the publics will to support it, and if the soldiers that are involved want to continue, why is it so hard for civilians to respect that?

George Bush did pressure Musharraf, and the US military has used Predators to attack targets in Pakistan. However, why pressure Pakistan to the point of destabilizing it when border security can be stepped up on the Afghan side?

As far s reading too much on extension, there is already talk this week that the NATO meeting should be looking at commitment beyond 2009.

It wouldn't surprise me. What surprises me is that people expect that the problems in that country can be fixed quickly. General Andrew Leslie called it a 20 year mission before the vote to extend to 2009. However, I don't think buying tanks means an extension of the mission. All it means is that they want better equipment. Whether they are in Afghanistan for another year or another ten years, having better equipment doesn't hurt, and the Leopard 1 tanks that Canada currently uses are due to be replaced regardless of whether or not Canada is in Afghanistan.