Afghanistan

[ScottSA]

Toronto Star columnist comments on the issue of the tanks among other things.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/205573

Are there indeed some tanks arriving after the mission there ends?

I don't see the value in tanks that will arrive after the mission is over.

Why don't you see the value in them? Is war everywhere and always expected to end when Canada's mission in Afghanistan ends? Should the Canadian forces stop upgrading and continue to slide in capabilities for ever? Should we keep driving around in old Leopards until they become like Seakings and present more danger to the crew than to the enemy? Why did we upgrade from postwar Sherman tanks when there was no war? Was there a value in upgrading then?

In any event, this article is typical dishonest TO Star reportage. This is downright criminal slander:

"Meanwhile, the war in Afghanistan, started for more legitimate reasons, is also taking on a similar illegitimate coloration. NATO allies, including Canada, are killing, or presiding over the killing, maiming and displacing of the people we are ostensibly there to save."

[jdobbin]

Why don't you see the value in them? Is war everywhere and always expected to end when Canada's mission in Afghanistan ends? Should the Canadian forces stop upgrading and continue to slide in capabilities for ever? Should we keep driving around in old Leopards until they become like Seakings and present more danger to the crew than to the enemy? Why did we upgrade from postwar Sherman tanks when there was no war? Was there a value in upgrading then?

My meaning was: why order tanks for Afghanistan that will not be used in Afghanistan? I have no problem of new equipment but just a year and a half ago, the military was talking about getting out of the tank business.

The mission is over in 2009 and these tanks are being bought for that mission even though they won't be there in time.

Are you suggesting this is because Canada has no intention of leaving Afghanistan?

[madmax]

I don't see the value in tanks that will arrive after the mission is over.

Why don't you see the value in them? Is war everywhere and always expected to end when Canada's mission in Afghanistan ends? Should the Canadian forces stop upgrading and continue to slide in capabilities for ever? Should we keep driving around in old Leopards until they become like Seakings and present more danger to the crew than to the enemy? Why did we upgrade from postwar Sherman tanks when there was no war? Was there a value in upgrading then?

As to the former question. Arriving after the mission ends, suggests this may not be money well spent.

As to the Latter

Similarly, if the Leopard is doomed, it is imperative that it notbe relinquished until some form of reasonably credible direct-firesupport alternative is in place. This, as the Minister intimated, mightwell be a member of the LAV/Stryker family with a 105 mm gun. Itshould be noted, however, that such a vehicle would probably not beavailable in quantity for quite some time, would not be inexpensive,and would still require substantial improvements in Canada’s airliftand sealift capabilities if it is to be rapidly deployable. It wouldindeed be ironic if the LAV variant turned out to be an interim suc-cessor to the Leopard, pending the availability of some of the futurearmoured vehicle concepts now being pursued by the United States.Martin Shadwick teaches Canadian defence policy at York University. He is a former editor of Canadian Defence Quarterly.THE TANK AND ASYMMETRIC CHOICES

I hope this helps.

[Jean_Poutine]

Why don't you see the value in them? Is war everywhere and always expected to end when Canada's mission in Afghanistan ends? Should the Canadian forces stop upgrading and continue to slide in capabilities for ever? Should we keep driving around in old Leopards until they become like Seakings and present more danger to the crew than to the enemy? Why did we upgrade from postwar Sherman tanks when there was no war? Was there a value in upgrading then?

My meaning was: why order tanks for Afghanistan that will not be used in Afghanistan? I have no problem of new equipment but just a year and a half ago, the military was talking about getting out of the tank business.

The mission is over in 2009 and these tanks are being bought for that mission even though they won't be there in time.

Are you suggesting this is because Canada has no intention of leaving Afghanistan?

1) The mission doesn't end in 2009. Even if Canadian troops leave, and I think it's better to make that decision when the time comes rather than writing it in stone ahead of time, the mission will continue.

2) There are 20 Leopard 2 A6M tanks that are being leased which will arrive in the summer. The 100 tanks that Canada is buying should arrive in Canada in the fall. Then, they'll make whatever modifications they have to make for the Canadian forces, and then send them to Afghanistan to replace the leased tanks.

They will be used, and regardless, they are replacing 30 year old tanks. Are you planning on driving the same car for 30 years? Canada is one of only two countries still using Leopard 1s.

As to whether or not they are useful, they are faster, have air conditioning - unlike the leopard 1s - and obviously provide more protection. The A6M is designed to survive mines and such. The tanks are also being paid for with money that's already within the budget. It won't be an additional cost, and it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

[jdobbin]

1) The mission doesn't end in 2009. Even if Canadian troops leave, and I think it's better to make that decision when the time comes rather than writing it in stone ahead of time, the mission will continue.

2) There are 20 Leopard 2 A6M tanks that are being leased which will arrive in the summer. The 100 tanks that Canada is buying should arrive in Canada in the fall. Then, they'll make whatever modifications they have to make for the Canadian forces, and then send them to Afghanistan to replace the leased tanks.

They will be used, and regardless, they are replacing 30 year old tanks. Are you planning on driving the same car for 30 years? Canada is one of only two countries still using Leopard 1s.

As to whether or not they are useful, they are faster, have air conditioning - unlike the leopard 1s - and obviously provide more protection. The A6M is designed to survive mines and such. The tanks are also being paid for with money that's already within the budget. It won't be an additional cost, and it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

I'm beginning to get the sense that the Tories will wait as long as possible to announce that they are extending the mission to 2012. It seems all the planning is connected to at least that long.

In the mean time, it looks like it is going to a long, hot summer with more suicide attacks and bombs.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/04/22/ap3638723.html

A suicide bomber blew himself up Sunday in an east Afghan city, killing six civilians and wounding 40 others, officials said.

Acting on a tip, police tried to stop a suspicious-looking man in the city of Khost, provincial police chief Gen. Mohammad Ayub said. When the man tried to flee, police chased him and opened fire on him, at which point he detonated his explosives, Ayub said.

Khost public health director Gul Mohammad Mohammadi said that six civilians were killed and 40 others were wounded, most of them with minor injuries. Fifteen people were hospitalized with serious injuries, he said.

[blueblood]

I'm beginning to get the sense that the Tories will wait as long as possible to announce that they are extending the mission to 2012. It seems all the planning is connected to at least that long.

Why would Harper who is on the verge of getting a majority want to piss it away on extending an unpopular mission? He's not that stupid, this mission is a vote divider, the sooner he gets this out of the way, the better, look at gay marriage, it's a non issue now because he put it to rest. Honestly what does he have to gain by extending the mission? There's no positive by extending the mission other than "fighting terror and bringing democracy to an impovershed region" The UN and NATO will be there for another 15 yrs. probly. Harper will say we went till 09, did a good job and now our turn is over. Looks good internationally and at home.

To me a majority government is more important than doing an idealogical mission.

[jbg]

I'm beginning to get the sense that the Tories will wait as long as possible to announce that they are extending the mission to 2012. It seems all the planning is connected to at least that long.

This thread has gone on long enough that what I said before bears repeating. The options in fighting Islamic terror are:

1. To jump in, wipe out the leaders and jump out. Probably should have been done that way in Iraq;
   
2. Inflict a terrifying amount of casualties and jump back out; or
   
3. Occupy and hold.
   

Afghanistan is one of the few areas that was never under any colonial rule. Unlike Pakistan or others in the area it never learned that an outside power could sweep in and say "what goes". The problem with Option One above is that Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan are tough places to find anyone. No one had the stomache for Option Two, yet. Perhaps another September 11 type attack will create the will to do this, and I doubt the casualties will be limited to one country. If they want to keep on playing "jihad" that's where things will go.

Option Three appears to be the order of the day in Afghanistan for the moment. Thus, the order of tanks.

[jdobbin]

Why would Harper who is on the verge of getting a majority want to piss it away on extending an unpopular mission? He's not that stupid, this mission is a vote divider, the sooner he gets this out of the way, the better, look at gay marriage, it's a non issue now because he put it to rest. Honestly what does he have to gain by extending the mission? There's no positive by extending the mission other than "fighting terror and bringing democracy to an impovershed region" The UN and NATO will be there for another 15 yrs. probly. Harper will say we went till 09, did a good job and now our turn is over. Looks good internationally and at home.

To me a majority government is more important than doing an idealogical mission.

I would have thought that he would have honored the Liberal commitment and moved out of southern Afghanistan but he didn't do that either. The pressure is on from our allies (most recently the NATO meeting in Canada last week) to make a commitment long term.

Canada is not the only country debating this issue. Britain, the U.S, Holland and Canada have all been dancing around the 10 year commitment idea.

If we were to have a spring election, some of the Afghanistan issue could be blunted (unless we experience even more casualties). The longer the wait for the election to begin, the more questions about the future of the war there. If Harper were to say that Canada was to be coming home in 2009, it could set up the environment for a majority government. I have seen no evidence of that yet.

[jdobbin]

[*]To jump in, wipe out the leaders and jump out. Probably should have been done that way in Iraq;

[*]Inflict a terrifying amount of casualties and jump back out; or

[*]Occupy and hold.

Option 1 still can still be on the table. Afghanistan needs a timetable for taking over its own internal security. The Taliban may never fully be routed out. A rapid deployment force stationed nearby could take out any future training camps for international terrorism.

[Army Guy]

Are mines left over from the USSR days and the Northern Alliance/Taliban era, being located and removed? Are they marked if not removed?

There are a few demining projects under way,, these mines are being destroyed in place. Military maps are full of known mine areas. just waitng for demining teams.

Are the holes, that are being filled up with everything under the sun, include mines from an older era, or are these new mines? Where are they getting these mines?

most are russian , few are new, but not many, the russians left

The majority of them are old russian stock, russians left millions of them behind most in storage. to give you an example, back in the earily days, we went to Kanadar airfield where we are now, the russians had dug a drainage ditch, the length of the airfield "over 2 kms long and some 20 feet wide, some 10 ft deep in this ditch layed side by side was aircraft ordance...from small arms, to 1000 lbs bombs... tones of bombs ,rockets, you name it...when they left they took what they could drive or fly out that was it, everything else was left behind...All that being said the Taliban are using new ordance but would account for a small percentage of what is used...

Also the triggering devices, how is it that a country which never engaged in these IED methods in the past, now able to manipulate the latest technology as a triggering device?

Actually they did use IED again'st the russians, mostly in convoy ambushes, like i said before thier tactics are always changing..There are alot of insurgants that are not from Afgan, such as Pakistan, but Iran and Iraqi trained fighters as well. A triggering device could range from a presure plate ,simple watch, or cell phone...to a photocell postioned for a certain time of day. It's all available here , all it takes is money,

when we brought in armoured vehs there bombs got bigger, when we stopped traveling on known trails the planted in the open fields.... Don't get me wrong, NATO does have counter measures that do work, and i won't get into them, but they are not always 100 % effective.

There was a time when the Afghans would just launch rockets and hope they scored a hit.

Again it's because they are changing tactics, much easier to brain wash some young kid into blowing himself up, for the cause, but as we see the IED increase in use , it's an indication that these young kids are getting harder to find...

The purchase of new tanks is a very good one for the military, not only for Afgan but for any future operation, there sure size and wieght command respect on any battle field, they save lives, and if we had them on Op mudusa things could have gone alot smoother, for us and extremily badly for the bad guys.

In regards to the militaries thinking about tanks just a year a half ago the liberals where in charge, and our funding was not going to change, tanks are very expensive to operate, and maintain, imagine wiping thru 1200 lts of dies in just a few hours, and times that by every veh on the battle field...

The LAV based MGS sys was wheeled based much easier on the budget, one of the prime considerations , but the MGS contract came out to 6.6 mil a copy, more than a MBT , the savings would come in operation of that veh...It's not that we did not want them , we could not afford them...over the long run.

[ScottSA]

Why would Harper who is on the verge of getting a majority want to piss it away on extending an unpopular mission? He's not that stupid, this mission is a vote divider, the sooner he gets this out of the way, the better, look at gay marriage, it's a non issue now because he put it to rest. Honestly what does he have to gain by extending the mission? There's no positive by extending the mission other than "fighting terror and bringing democracy to an impovershed region" The UN and NATO will be there for another 15 yrs. probly. Harper will say we went till 09, did a good job and now our turn is over. Looks good internationally and at home.

To me a majority government is more important than doing an idealogical mission.

This entire post appears to make of Harper yet another cynical politician concerned only over the optics of putting young men's lives onm the line.

What if, just by some freak chance, Harper is doing what he thinks SHOULD be done instead of what looks good? We're so used to decades of Liberal poll-driven government that perhaps it's a political culture shock to see a politician acting on his beliefs rather than on expediency.

In any event, beefing up the forces is what he said he would do, so it shouldn't come as a startling surprise that he's doing it. He's not a Lib, y'know...

[blueblood]

This entire post appears to make of Harper yet another cynical politician concerned only over the optics of putting young men's lives onm the line.

What if, just by some freak chance, Harper is doing what he thinks SHOULD be done instead of what looks good? We're so used to decades of Liberal poll-driven government that perhaps it's a political culture shock to see a politician acting on his beliefs rather than on expediency.

In any event, beefing up the forces is what he said he would do, so it shouldn't come as a startling surprise that he's doing it. He's not a Lib, y'know...

That's part of being a leader is putting men's lives on the line. General Currie put 3000+ on the line when the Canadians took Vimy ridge.

World Leaders have to be cynical politicians, one doesn't get to be a person of power by not catering to the masses. Harper's agenda is to be PM of Canada and have a majority government. His entire administration so far has been catering to the masses. It would be political suicide to stay in Afghanistan past 09, there is nothing to be gained politically by staying there. A commitment was made to 09, they honor the commitment and get out. I'd rather have a few world leaders suggest that we go to A-stan long term than have an entire country of pissed off civilians, who have the power to vote you out of office. Germany isn't pulling it's weight in A-Stan, what do we do, we are renting tanks from them.

Harper will pull out of A-Stan in 09 and take his majority government that will come with it. Is it dirty politics, yes. Will it work, probably.

[Army Guy]

I think alot can happen between now and our sceduled pullout, not only in Afgan, but on the home front as well, poll numbers swing fast, perhaps harper and company can win a majority before that date, but i tend to agree that if they don't have the numbers for a majority extending afgan will hurt them in the polls.

I don't think the excuse that we have pulled more than our our share works for me, i think we 've made a commitment and should stick to it, until there is no other opitions. but thats just me, one voter.

That being said if Canadians are not going to support the mission and concentrate on finding a solution then we should pull out, not for another mission but allow the military to recup, rearm and rebuild.

[jdobbin]

This entire post appears to make of Harper yet another cynical politician concerned only over the optics of putting young men's lives onm the line.

What if, just by some freak chance, Harper is doing what he thinks SHOULD be done instead of what looks good? We're so used to decades of Liberal poll-driven government that perhaps it's a political culture shock to see a politician acting on his beliefs rather than on expediency.

In any event, beefing up the forces is what he said he would do, so it shouldn't come as a startling surprise that he's doing it. He's not a Lib, y'know...

His last budget seemed an attempt to outdo all previous Liberal budgets.

As far as how long Harper expects to be in Afghanistan, I expect we ought not to be surprised if it is quite a few more years.

[jdobbin]

I don't think the excuse that we have pulled more than our our share works for me, i think we 've made a commitment and should stick to it, until there is no other opitions. but thats just me, one voter.

That being said if Canadians are not going to support the mission and concentrate on finding a solution then we should pull out, not for another mission but allow the military to recup, rearm and rebuild.

Our commitment is till 2009.

And it isn't Canada that is solely responsible for a solution. If Afghanistan can't ever take care of itself, Canada cannot and should not be expected to stay forever.

We can't build a nation if they continue to resort to tribalism and cripple all attempts at building trust and support for the government. We also can't build a nation wish such poor support from NATO. And lastly, we can't build a nation in Iran and Pakistan are determined to undermine Afghanistan.

[jbg]

What if, just by some freak chance, Harper is doing what he thinks SHOULD be done instead of what looks good? We're so used to decades of Liberal poll-driven government that perhaps it's a political culture shock to see a politician acting on his beliefs rather than on expediency.

That wouldn't be the only time that Harper's acted in this manner. Look at his support for Israel. He sure won't gain any ridings by supporting Israel, yet he is clearly doing the right thing.

[jdobbin]

That wouldn't be the only time that Harper's acted in this manner. Look at his support for Israel. He sure won't gain any ridings by supporting Israel, yet he is clearly doing the right thing.

He might have also told Israel that they might fight a war and not actually gain their soldiers freedom and in the end might have to trade prisoners.

This is something they are routinely have had to do.

[Army Guy]

Our commitment is till 2009.

Yes our commitment is offically over in 2009, but the job of rebuilding this nation is not finished, that is the question do we walk away with no regrets, or do we finsih the job that we started.

And it isn't Canada that is solely responsible for a solution. If Afghanistan can't ever take care of itself, Canada cannot and should not be expected to stay forever.

No it's not, but the main players are still there with no withdrawal in sight, we are part of the main effort and should pull out when the jobs done. How long is forever, we spent over 25 years in Cyprus, well over 12 years in bosina, over 40 years in germany...

We can't build a nation if they continue to resort to tribalism and cripple all attempts at building trust and support for the government. We also can't build a nation wish such poor support from NATO. And lastly, we can't build a nation in Iran and Pakistan are determined to undermine Afghanistan.

If seems like an impossiable task, but we are making a difference, we are making progress, painfully slow but it is still there.

[PolyNewbie]

We should at least stay there until the banks have permanent branches and one generation has gotten accustomed to paying income tax. Perhaps we should stay until Afghan forces are ready to help us fight the next "war on terror"

[Army Guy]

You mean like Germany, or Japan...

[ScottSA]

That wouldn't be the only time that Harper's acted in this manner. Look at his support for Israel. He sure won't gain any ridings by supporting Israel, yet he is clearly doing the right thing.

He might have also told Israel that they might fight a war and not actually gain their soldiers freedom and in the end might have to trade prisoners.

This is something they are routinely have had to do.

I don't think anyone claimed Harper was the Oracle of Delphi. Besides, I think Israel did it for the comedic value of presenting to the world the vision of a beturbaned Islamic redneck declaring victory from atop a pile of rubble formerly known as Hezbollah Headquarters.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear madmax,

Sorry to go off topic.... this should be in the Afghan thread.

Kaplans book is a great starting point for any reader. I mentioned it in the other Afghan thread. I am glad to see you were able to put together that it was the one and the same Abdul Haq whom was killed in 2001. If you know the details of his death, it was very disheartening.

Many of the players in that book are still active today. It also must be said, that Abdul Haq, while the focus of the book, wasn't a leader of the larger Muj groups. Neither was Karzai. But they where more moderate, in comparision some of the other groups the US was backing. Kaplan is Jewish and at this time, the Muj held no animosity towards "the people of the book" and those whom believed in God vs those Godless commies.

This continued from the 'Oconnor' thread...

I read the book long ago, and was very saddened by the loss of Abdul Haq, and I think that he would likely have been the best chance Afghanistan may have had to both win international respect and to replace the Taliban. I am still bitter that the CIA squandered his life in such a worthless and misguided operation. Another person of note in that book was Massoud (of the Northern Alliance), who was also killed by the Taliban just 2 days before "9/11". But they left the CIA's (and Pakistan's ISI) favourite anti-western Islamic extremist, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar alone, even though he was 'in bed with the West'.

[jdobbin]

Our commitment is till 2009.

Yes our commitment is offically over in 2009, but the job of rebuilding this nation is not finished, that is the question do we walk away with no regrets, or do we finsih the job that we started.

No it's not, but the main players are still there with no withdrawal in sight, we are part of the main effort and should pull out when the jobs done. How long is forever, we spent over 25 years in Cyprus, well over 12 years in bosina, over 40 years in germany...

If seems like an impossiable task, but we are making a difference, we are making progress, painfully slow but it is still there.

I'd love if this was the year that the back of the Taliban was broken and Afghanistan took charge of its own security.

As for your comparison of Germany, Bosnia or Cyprus, there was not an ongoing insurgency in those countries year after year. Also, nation building in those countries was handled mostly by the people of those places themselves.

The mission should not be extended beyond 2009 unless there is some evidence that Canada isn't going to be the sharp end of the stick for two more years.

[jdobbin]

I don't think anyone claimed Harper was the Oracle of Delphi. Besides, I think Israel did it for the comedic value of presenting to the world the vision of a beturbaned Islamic redneck declaring victory from atop a pile of rubble formerly known as Hezbollah Headquarters.

Given Hezbollah a continues stranglehold of Lebanon and the fact that they still hold Israeli prisoners, Israel can't claim to have achieved victory in the war.

[bush_cheney2004]

Given Hezbollah continues stranglehold of Lebanon and the fact that they still hold Israeli prisoners, Israel can't claim to have achieved victory in the war.

Gee, the US and UK should use that line for Iraq. Victory!