Afghanistan

[madmax]

Western Intelligence may be good,

You mean like those WMD and drones of death in Iraq that almost 3200 young Americans have died for so far?

Interesting that you would take the quote so out of context.

Baylee, I will take a little bit of time to answer you.

This thread is on Afghanistan, but I will digress with regards to Iraq, and HUMAN INTELLIGENCE. Known as Humit for short.

Human Intelligence for the US in Iraq was nearly non existent. Insiders weren't really insiders, and there were liars that were trying to make a buck but were discredited. Yet the US administration choose to use whatever garbage they needed to promote a war. If you tell a lie long enough people will begin to believe it, and the Bush administration told whopper after whopper.

However, back to Afghanistan. Without good information on the ground, progress will be difficult to achieve.

The ISI has a significant human intelligence network. They can find people of interest if/when necessary. The US/Can has no such capabilities in any large scale to perform such needed and required actions.

[Wilber]

Since every other country in the world is now setting timetables for their troops, it seems churlish to say Canada shouldn't have a timetable.

I don't believe anyone else is saying that they are categorically leaving on a certain date, particularly a date two years from now. If I was there and Dion told me that, I would say put me on the next plane home. Why should I stick around and get shot at when you have no intention of staying here even if we are accomplishing something worthwhile.

If we are really going to pull out, six months is more than adequate notice for our allies. Two years in limbo for our guys is garbage.

[jdobbin]

I don't believe anyone else is saying that they are categorically leaving on a certain date, particularly a date two years from now. If I was there and Dion told me that, I would say put me on the next plane home. Why should I stick around and get shot at when you have no intention of staying here even if we are accomplishing something worthwhile.

If we are really going to pull out, six months is more than adequate notice for our allies. Two years in limbo for our guys is garbage.

Almost all of the NATO countries have timetables for when they go home, what district they work in, when they work, what they will do, how they will do it. Almost every country has a timetable for 2009. It is the NATO leadership that is now setting up rotations for 2009 to 2011. They are looking for NATO countries to commit to those rotations and have come knocking on Canada's door already.

This is what the debate at NATO was about last week.

[blueblood]

I don't believe anyone else is saying that they are categorically leaving on a certain date, particularly a date two years from now. If I was there and Dion told me that, I would say put me on the next plane home. Why should I stick around and get shot at when you have no intention of staying here even if we are accomplishing something worthwhile.

If we are really going to pull out, six months is more than adequate notice for our allies. Two years in limbo for our guys is garbage.

Almost all of the NATO countries have timetables for when they go home, what district they work in, when they work, what they will do, how they will do it. Almost every country has a timetable for 2009. It is the NATO leadership that is now setting up rotations for 2009 to 2011. They are looking for NATO countries to commit to those rotations and have come knocking on Canada's door already.

This is what the debate at NATO was about last week.

Why not invade northern Pakistan and purge the North part of it of the Taliban.

[Wilber]

Almost all of the NATO countries have timetables for when they go home, what district they work in, when they work, what they will do, how they will do it. Almost every country has a timetable for 2009. It is the NATO leadership that is now setting up rotations for 2009 to 2011. They are looking for NATO countries to commit to those rotations and have come knocking on Canada's door already.

We have a timetable as well, I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with saying two years in advance that we will stick to it regardless of what happens in the meantime.

[jdobbin]

Why not invade northern Pakistan and purge the North part of it of the Taliban.

Because Pakistan might nuke us.

[blueblood]

Why not invade northern Pakistan and purge the North part of it of the Taliban.

Because Pakistan might nuke us.

I doubt it. They wouldn't have the guts to pull that off. Pakistan would be screwed if they did that.

[jdobbin]

We have a timetable as well, I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with saying two years in advance that we will stick to it regardless of what happens in the meantime.

This war requires each country to commit to a timetable and to give advance warning of when they will rotate off the line. More than two years on the frontline is enough. if NATO really believes in the mission, they will not continue to dodge who goes to Kandahar next.

[Wilber]

We have a timetable as well, I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with saying two years in advance that we will stick to it regardless of what happens in the meantime.

This war requires each country to commit to a timetable and to give advance warning of when they will rotate off the line. More than two years on the frontline is enough. if NATO really believes in the mission, they will not continue to dodge who goes to Kandahar next.

It is foolhardy to make an iron bound commitment to leave, two years in advance. It just isn't necessary. If it is worth doing and takes more than two years, so be it but everyone will have to pull their weight for it to work, not just the people who are there now.

[jdobbin]

It is foolhardy to make an iron bound commitment to leave, two years in advance. It just isn't necessary. If it is worth doing and takes more than two years, so be it but everyone will have to pull their weight for it to work, not just the people who are there now.

Some say it is foolhardy to say you will stay in an area for two years because it gives no incentive for the nation to handle its own security.

[Wilber]

Some say it is foolhardy to say you will stay in an area for two years because it gives no incentive for the nation to handle its own security.

I agree.

[jdobbin]

As the Taliban gears up for a new offensive, it looks like NATO is still short of at least 1000 troops promised.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7030200639.html

U.S. Gen. John Craddock told reporters that while the allies are winning more battles with insurgents, they are losing the counter-narcotics war, and more work and greater coordination is needed in the reconstruction effort.

Craddock said there has already been a slight increase in suicide attacks and roadside bombs _ the beginnings of an expected increase in violence as the weather improves. And he said he is still short by as much as two battalions, largely combat units, despite recent commitments for about 7,000 additional troops there, including more than 3,500 from the United States. A battalion is generally about 800 soldiers.

Meanwhile, attacks are increasing as snows melt in the passes and the wet weather gives way to drier weather.

In the last days a South Korean and a U.S. soldier were killed by bombs. Last week, it was an American and Spanish soldier. And a few days before that several Americans were killed in a helicopter crash still under investigation

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/bush-f...2338881447.html

The shortage of troops, the inability of Karzai to get a unity government and Pakistan and now possibly Iran's interference could mean a fierce spring.

While the Conservatives in Canada are still 100% behind the mission, the most recent polls in Canada show that the country remains very much split. An election in Canada could easily be swayed by casualties as people wonder aloud whether Afghanistan will ever be able to take care of itself.

[PolyNewbie]

CharlesAnthony:There are several Canadian soldiers at war and dying in Afghanistan and we do not even know why.

Yes we do know why. We stopped the Taliban from destroying the opium crop. Its stronger now than it ever was - $ 600 billion per year. Go to the UN web site and see for yourself. We went in after the Taliban cut down production to 10 % of what it was.

The official story is that the Taliban increased opium production to fight us. That's stupid because these and any other crop can be identified by their infrared signature and destroyed from the air if that was the truth.

[Jean_Poutine]

As the Taliban gears up for a new offensive, it looks like NATO is still short of at least 1000 troops promised.

Aside from the increase in US troops, Britain is adding 1400 troops, which will bring their total to about 7700, and it'll mean that the British will have more forces in Afghanistan than Iraq.

British troops to be sent to Afghanistan

[jdobbin]

Aside from the increase in US troops, Britain is adding 1400 troops, which will bring their total to about 7700, and it'll mean that Britain will have more forces in Afghanistan than Iraq.

British troops to be sent to Afghanistan

Those numbers were accounted for in the story I linked. It means they are still short two combat battalions.

[Jean_Poutine]

Those numbers were accounted for in the story I linked. It means they are still short two combat battalions.

First, I see no mention of British troops in that article. Second, you can watch the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing that the article mentions by opening Real Player, selecting file/open, and copying & pasting this into it:

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter030107_afghan.rm

Had some problems with linking it in the forums because http gets added to it. It's also listed under Recent Programs at C-SPAN.org as: Senate Armed Services Cmte. Hearing on the Situation in Afghanistan (3/1/2007).

In that Senate Hearing, on the subject of shortages, General James Jones said, "I think the more worrisome thing is that nations make the commitment and then put caveats on their forces that make their forces marginally useful." The additional US and British troops don't have caveats.

General James Jones points out that they were short 2000-3000 since the NATO plan was put together. When they've been short 2000-3000 from the beginning and the US and UK add roughly 5000, I don't see how they're still short 1000, but it's an improvement over the past situation.

[jdobbin]

First, I see no mention of British troops in that article. Second, you can watch the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing that the article mentions by opening Real Player, selecting file/open, and copying & pasting this into it:

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter030107_afghan.rm

Had some problems with linking it in the forums because http gets added to it. It's also listed under Recent Programs at C-SPAN.org as: Senate Armed Services Cmte. Hearing on the Situation in Afghanistan (3/1/2007).

In that Senate Hearing, on the subject of shortages, General James Jones said, "I think the more worrisome thing is that nations make the commitment and then put caveats on their forces that make their forces marginally useful." The additional US and British troops don't have caveats.

General James Jones points out that they were short 2000-3000 since the NATO plan was put together. When they've been short 2000-3000 from the beginning and the US and UK add roughly 5000, I don't see how they're still short 1000, but it's an improvement over the past situation.

The Washington Post article from Friday clearly states:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7030200639.html

about 7,000 additional troops there, including more than 3,500 from the United States. A battalion is generally about 800 soldiers.

That includes British troops.

And I looked at the link and they mention all troop commitments up to right now. That means, according to General Craddock, they are 1000 combat troops short.

[madmax]

CharlesAnthony:There are several Canadian soldiers at war and dying in Afghanistan and we do not even know why.

Yes we do know why. We stopped the Taliban from destroying the opium crop. Its stronger now than it ever was - $ 600 billion per year. Go to the UN web site and see for yourself. We went in after the Taliban cut down production to 10 % of what it was.

That is not why. We did not go into Afghanistan to restart the growth of the opium trade. That is the unpredictable side effects of war and anarchy. The warlords and the Taliban all use Opium to fund their arms. The farmers will rebel without compensation. We went into the country for the right reasons, even though we were not responsible for the mess delivered to the country courtesy of the USSR, or the Islamic Fundamentalist insurgency aided by the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

The official story is that the Taliban increased opium production to fight us. That's stupid because these and any other crop can be identified by their infrared signature and destroyed from the air if that was the truth.

The Taliban reduced Opium Production when in Government. However, they are using the Opium trade to wage Jihad against the Infidels because it is considered ok in their religious circles.

What troubles me, is that you always have the element of conspiracy in every post you put forth.

How can somebody determine whether opium crops are for the Karzai side, the Warlords, or the Taliban?

The farmers grow the crops and move them to the markets. There is plenty for everyone.

[Alexandra]

Tom Clark's Afghanistan Blog

Updated Sat. Mar. 3 2007 12:13 PM ET

Tom Clark, CTV News

Thursday March 1, 2007

I am not making this up.

Today I met Captain Canada.

Clearly this needs some explanation.

The Kandahar Air Field is swimming in nationalities: Canadians, Brits, Dutch, Romanians, Jordanians, Afghans, Australians, and especially Americans. Our southern cousins are everywhere here, which is not surprising because they are by far the largest contingent on Base. They are also everyone's best friend in need. Any ground unit here knows that if you run into a spot of something, one call to the American air force can usually get you out of it. They are also extremely friendly.

Although this is a multinational mission, every country maintains, and proudly so, its own distinct uniforms, insignias, and recreational compounds. The Dutch, for instance, have their own little Amsterdam style café, without of course anything you would normally find in an Amsterdam Café, except coffee.

But the mess tents are a multinational free-for-all. It was there that I spotted him. At the next table, a person wearing a distinctly American uniform, with the words U.S. Air Force over the left pocket of his shirt, and the word Canada over the right pocket. I guess my curiosity showed.

"Canadian eh?" he said in a drawl that came straight from south of the Mason Dixon line.

"Canadians always stare".

Well, yeah!

Any uniform that has both U.S. Air Force and Canada on it is a bit unusual, for either Canadians or Americans. It turns out that it was more unusual than I imagined.

He introduced himself.

"Hi. Captain Rick Canada"

(First reaction: get out of here! Second reaction: stifle growing urge to guffaw.)

So I had to say something I never thought I'd ever get to say; "Nice to meet you ... Captain Canada".

From his expression, he's gone through this routine a few times before. But he was extremely indulgent, patient, and pleasant. He explained that the origin of his name is Spanish (which lends credence to one of the stories of how we got that name for our country -- a Spanish explorer took one look at it and declared "Ca Nada", which loosely translated means "there's nothing here").

But when I got more comfortable with his name, Captain Canada and I talked. He was an extremely amiable man and he opened up about something else.

He's been in Afghanistan for six months now, and it's the first time he's ever worked with Canadian soldiers.

"We really like working with your guys." And in that wonderfully direct and sincere way Americans speak he added: "I mean it. They're great. Best around."

Who's to disagree with Captain Canada? Not me.........."

Captain Canada. A little lighthearted conversation for a change from a reporter from CTV in Afghanistan.

[jdobbin]

Two NATO soldiers killed.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/03/04/a...n-violence.html

Details were still emerging Sunday about the deaths of two NATO soldiers in southern Afghanistan, including what happened in the attack and the nationalities of the soldiers killed.

NATO officials have not provided information on Saturday's attack except to say it happened during military exercises in the southern region of the war-torn country.

Officials in Kandahar, however, have told CBC News that the two soldiers who died were not from Canada.

At Kandahar airfield British flags have been lowered to half-mast, the CBC's Tom Parry reported from Afghanistan.

The Taliban continue to push their attack.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17446441/

A “complex” ambush involving a suicide car bomb and militant gunfire killed 16 Afghan civilians and wounded 25 people during an attack on a coalition convoy in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday, officials said.

The suicide bomber hit the American convoy with an explosives-packed minivan, said Noor Agha Zawok, the spokesman for the governor of Nangarhar province, and militants then fired gunfire from several directions, the U.S. military said. Coalition forces returned fire in defense of the attack, the U.S. said.

So far Canada has not suffered any deaths or major injuries in this last week or two but it is apparent that the violence is widespread.

Afghanistan has renewed its call on Pakistan to stop supporting the Taliban and Dick Cheney is going to meet the Pakistani leadership. It is hard to say that will any more successful than past meetings at reigning in the rogue provinces bordering Afghanistan.

[jdobbin]

There have been several mentions in the media about the level of corruption but now a watchdog on Afghanistan confirms it is becoming a threat to the country.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArti...toryId=DEL31225

"Corruption is very dangerous for a country which is on the path to be reconstructed, where the legitimacy of the new state is very necessary," IWA executive director Lorenzo Delesgues told a news conference.

"It has also increased the feeling of injustice among the people," he said, adding that high levels of graft showed "the state doesn't control its territory totally".

President Hamid Karzai's Western-backed government faces increasing disillusionment over its failure to provide people with jobs and the fact that much of the billions of dollars in foreign aid is wasted or lost in corruption.

Meanwhile, another watchdog said the situation for women has gotten worse in the last while.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/2...rningwomen.html

The group interviewed about 800 Afghans whose sisters, daughters and daughters-in-law have killed themselves by self-immolation to escape domestic abuse, forced marriage and other misogynistic social customs.

The report and anecdotal evidence from other rights workers suggests the phenomenon is growing, with desperate women sometimes mimicking what they have seen reported on TV.

“It's really a big problem in Afghanistan,” said Nabila Wafiq, who has researched the issue for the aid group Medica Mondiale, which has interviewed women who survived their self-immolation attempts.

[jdobbin]

Hillier warned today that violence is expected again this spring in Afghanistan.

Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, acknowledges Taliban insurgents will step up their attacks as the weather warms. But he rejects the notion of a Taliban spring "offensive." "I don't think that's really the kind of terminology which describes what the Taliban will try to do and is indeed trying to do now," he told reporters after a speech Tuesday to the Canadian Club.

"We know we're going to have a surge of the Taliban, that's without question. They are going to try to do things during the campaign season, the better weather season, that they could not do during the winter months."

To bring that into sharp focus, two Canadians were hurt by a suicide bomber today.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...70327?hub=World

Two Canadian soldiers were injured in Afghanistan Tuesday when their LAV-3 armoured vehicle was attacked by a suicide bomber west of Kandahar City, in the Zhari district.

The soldiers were travelling in a small convoy just east of Patrol Base Wilson in an area called "Ambush Alley" when Taliban fighters began launching rocket-propelled grenades, military officials confirmed.

The military isn't expecting a stand-up fight. I don't think anyone should take this to mean it will be an ineffective campaign though. Witness Iraq. Bombings take their toll as well.

[jdobbin]

Defence minister hints at what may lie beyond 2009 for Canada in Afghanistan.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Tuesday Afghanistan is a "success story" and Canada will have a presence in the country until the progress made cannot be reversed by Taliban extremists.

"Afghanistan is improving," O'Connor told reporters in Montreal after a luncheon speech. "There are 37 countries in there. There's a lot of aid and a lot of effort going in to build that country up.

He won't say the government is committed beyond 2009 but he says Canada won't go till Afghanistan won't be retaken by Taliban.

Sounds like that might be a very long time.

Meanwhile, the spring offensive is well underway. Three American soldiers killed last week and two Canadians hurt in a mine explosion.

http://www.icasualties.org/oef/byNationality.aspx?hndQry=US

The 17 Leopard tanks may have to be parked because they are built for northern Europe's climate, not Afghanistan's.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070403/...ghan_cda_leslie

Canada may park its force of 17 Leopard tanks in Afghanistan this summer to avoid losing any crew members to the brutal heat.

By August the temperature inside the 42-tonne steel monsters, which aren't air-conditioned, could climb as high as 65 degrees Celsius, Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie said Tuesday. "We don't have a solution that is outside the scope of a newer, more modern machine," said Leslie, commander of the Army branch of the Canadian Forces.

"We will have to restrict their operations because we are not going to lose soldiers because they overheat."

[bush_cheney2004]

There have been several mentions in the media about the level of corruption but now a watchdog on Afghanistan confirms it is becoming a threat to the country.

Yes...Afghanistan needs to take a cue from Canada.....you can have corruption without threatening the country!

[jdobbin]

Yes...Afghanistan needs to take a cue from Canada.....you can have corruption without threatening the country!

You think so? So you think that Afghanistan's corruption has no chance at all of bringing down the government and causing civil unrest? That confident, are you?

Corruption in Canada isn't a threat to a longstanding democracy. It is a threat to a country that has little experience in it.