Afghanistan

[jdobbin]

Yes, of course, but what becomes of Canada' stated foreign policy objectives (i.e. Responsibility to Protect, justice, UN mission, yada yada, yada)?

Then there is the more direct issue of NATO membership and mission. Castigations of those members who will not directly engage the security threats will ring hollow after a 2009 retreat. I'm not convinced that Parliament will bail in 2009...some form of security mission will remain, not unlike the original ISAF objectives.

Hoping that the Americans abandon or pressure Afghanistan is just another way of relieving Canada from stated "values" and hard choices.

I have no problem with an end to the mission in Afghanistan as it now stands. No one cannot say Canada hasn't done its part and if no one steps up to fill the role, it says more about NATO and Afghan allies than it does about us.

[bush_cheney2004]

I have no problem with an end to the mission in Afghanistan as it now stands. No one cannot say Canada hasn't done its part and if no one steps up to fill the role, it says more about NATO and Afghan allies than it does about us.

Agreed...Canada has certainly contributed blood and money to the A-stan mission. That's good copy for domestic political consumption, but it doesn't address long term foreign policy objectives and NATO obligations. Good-bye in 2009 does not preclude hello at some future date in this or another mission.

I believe the UN-Cyprus mission went on for 29 years.

[M.Dancer]

I believe the UN-Cyprus mission went on for 29 years.

And cost the lives of 28 Canadians.

[weaponeer]

29 years, & 28 lives, a failure. Peackeeping was not intended by Pearson to be conducted the way it is. On to Afghanistan, being here right now I can say there is progress, all be it slow. NATO has problems, and I do not think you'll get most NATO countries here to fight, they most likely would not fight too hard it they were attacked themselves, you cannot expect them to come here and give 100%.

Canada does have a tradition going back to the Boer War of giving 100% in combat. We do not like it, we do not seek it, but we do the heavy lifting when asked, and that is something all Canadians can be, & should be proud of.

We lost 60,000 men in WW1, another 45,000 in WW2, and sadly 516 in Korea. We have lost Canadians in Peacekeeping, Peace making, humanitarian missions, and we have NEVER just up and quite on the world. We really need to think about what we do, there are consequences.

As for NATO, I do not believe it has every really worked, I think we need to seriously review our participation in it in the future. Perhaps it is time for a new defence alliance. Canada, UK, USA, Australia & New Zealand.....

[jbg]

We lost 60,000 men in WW1, another 45,000 in WW2, and sadly 516 in Korea. We have lost Canadians in Peacekeeping, Peace making, humanitarian missions, and we have NEVER just up and quite on the world. We really need to think about what we do, there are consequences.

Amen to that. Something the Anglosphere should be proud of.

[jdobbin]

29 years, & 28 lives, a failure. Peackeeping was not intended by Pearson to be conducted the way it is. On to Afghanistan, being here right now I can say there is progress, all be it slow. NATO has problems, and I do not think you'll get most NATO countries here to fight, they most likely would not fight too hard it they were attacked themselves, you cannot expect them to come here and give 100%.

The problem with Cyprus was that Greek and Turk sides were perfectly happy to continue with the Green line for decades to come and no one was willing to pay for the bulk of the operation except Canada. After so many years, Canada began to wonder if our forces could be better deployed rather than be a permanent occupation force between two parties.

I think most people would agree that Canada definitely had better places to place its troops.

As for Afghanistan, there is still hope that things can be turned around but the Afghan government will have to start showing it can take of itself and meet benchmarks or Canada and its allies will begin to lose faith. Several Canadian soldiers have been hurt this weekend, five NATO soldiers have been killed. While 127 deaths doesn't sound like a lot, it begins to accumulate when measured in years when there is no change.

[jdobbin]

Speculation now turns to Afghanistan now that the cabinet change has happened.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...15?hub=Politics

Norman Spector, a former diplomat and chief of staff to Brian Mulroney, said the political dynamic of the current minority Parliament doesn't favour a statesmanlike, non-partisan approach. He believes, however, that Harper has no choice but to strike a deal with at least one opposition party if he wants to preserve some semblance of his Afghan policy.

The challenge is to "reconfigure'' the mission in a way that both sides can live with, said Spector. The NDP likely could never be convinced to drop its outright opposition to the troop deployment, but the Liberals and Bloc could be more amenable.

Both those parties have acknowledged there's no alternative to continuing the mission until the end of the current term in 2009. They maintain that, if Canadian troops stay longer than that, they should pull back from combat role and spend more time on reconstruction, economic development projects and training of local forces.

If there's a deal to be struck, said Spector, "it's going to require tough negotiations. In the best of all possible worlds the other parties would respond to an olive branch from the government, but who knows?''

Alex Morrison, head of the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies, thinks the best bet for a deal is with the Liberals. Whether the Bloc signs on could depend on whether Bernier is successful in his assigned task of selling the mission to a Quebec public that has so far been skeptical.

"If Bernier does his job and raises the stock of the Conservative party in Quebec, then the Bloc might just have to hold their noses,'' said Morrison.

I'd have a hard time believing the present policy will be continued.

Some in this article say that Harper could make it a confidence vote. I think this would be the type of thing an election could be lost on. The cut and run argument will not be a big seller in Quebec. It would probably not be taken well in the rest of the country either especially when framed in terms of who is a better Canadian.

Edited August 16, 2007 by jdobbin

[bush_cheney2004]

Speculation now turns to Iraq now that the cabinet change has happened.

Oh..you mean the other Iraq...Afghanistan?

[jdobbin]

Oh..you mean the other Iraq...Afghanistan?

My error. I was watching the report on the bombing in northern Iraq while I was posting about the speculation on Afghanistan and typed Iraq instead.

The news from Afghanistan was three German police killed today on an attack that was probably aimed at the German ambassador.

Edited August 16, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Dion says Harper should indicate to Bush that Canada is out of Kandahar in 2009.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...17?hub=Politics

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion says the prime minister should make it clear that Canada will soon withdraw from its current combat role in Afghanistan when he meets with U.S. President George W. Bush next week.

"The prime minister should notify to NATO, the Americans and the government of Afghanistan that our combat mission in Kandahar will effectively end in February 2009,'' Dion told a news conference Friday.

"The more we wait, the less we are a good partner for our allies.''

It doesn't sound like there will be a consensus. I wonder if Harper will simply inform NATO sometime this fall that Canada will be done in 2009.

[Black Dog]

As for NATO, I do not believe it has every really worked, I think we need to seriously review our participation in it in the future. Perhaps it is time for a new defence alliance. Canada, UK, USA, Australia & New Zealand.....

Well, the failure of NATO can be explained by the fact that the organization lost its raison d'etre about 20 years ago. But that's me being smart alecky. A better reason for the lack of enthusiasm by other NATO partners could simply be they feel they have little to gain from taking on any of the, as you call it, heavy-lifting. Which should maybe tell us something.

[jbg]

Dion says Harper should indicate to Bush that Canada is out of Kandahar in 2009.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...17?hub=Politics

It doesn't sound like there will be a consensus. I wonder if Harper will simply inform NATO sometime this fall that Canada will be done in 2009.

I wonder if the radical Muslims, who have had the rest of the world in their sights since the time of Mohamed, will inform the West that they're done at the end of the next prime time program?

[Wilber]

As for Afghanistan, there is still hope that things can be turned around but the Afghan government will have to start showing it can take of itself and meet benchmarks or Canada and its allies will begin to lose faith. Several Canadian soldiers have been hurt this weekend, five NATO soldiers have been killed. While 127 deaths doesn't sound like a lot, it begins to accumulate when measured in years when there is no change.

I'm certainly not qualified to comment on the motivation or capabilities of Afghani troops and police but it seems to me that they are taking most of the casualties.

[jdobbin]

I'm certainly not qualified to comment on the motivation or capabilities of Afghani troops and police but it seems to me that they are taking most of the casualties.

And according to our own troops have been responsible for a lot of the unrest in regions due to their corruption, incompetence and untrustworthiness.

[jdobbin]

I wonder if the radical Muslims, who have had the rest of the world in their sights since the time of Mohamed, will inform the West that they're done at the end of the next prime time program?

I don't know what this has to do with Afghanistan and/or the length of time Canada is expected to sit out in Kandahar with NATO not backing us up and with Afghan forces two years or more behind schedule.

[jbg]

I wonder if the radical Muslims, who have had the rest of the world in their sights since the time of Mohamed, will inform the West that they're done at the end of the next prime time program?

I don't know what this has to do with Afghanistan and/or the length of time Canada is expected to sit out in Kandahar with NATO not backing us up and with Afghan forces two years or more behind schedule.

NATO is irrelevant. If the US pulled out that may be a different story.

Still, Canada is a Western democracy, and has cast its lot with an open style of life. That is inconsistent with what the Taliban wants. Neither 2009 nor any arbitrary date will mark the end of their quest for domination and dhimmitude or death for everyone else.

[jdobbin]

NATO is irrelevant. If the US pulled out that may be a different story.

Still, Canada is a Western democracy, and has cast its lot with an open style of life. That is inconsistent with what the Taliban wants. Neither 2009 nor any arbitrary date will mark the end of their quest for domination and dhimmitude or death for everyone else.

NATO is not irrelevant.

As far as southern Afghanistan goes, 2009 is long enough for NATO and Afghan forces to find someone else to shoulder some of the heavy lifting.

There will always be reasons to stay there for decades but staying there because we're played for suckers isn't one of them.

[jdobbin]

The New York Times has been writing extensively on Afghanistan this month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/world/as...tml?ref=opinion

But that skepticism had never taken hold in Washington. Since the 2001 war, American intelligence agencies had reported that the Taliban were so decimated they no longer posed a threat, according to two senior intelligence officials who reviewed the reports.

The American sense of victory had been so robust that the top C.I.A. specialists and elite Special Forces units who had helped liberate Afghanistan had long since moved on to the next war, in Iraq.

Those sweeping miscalculations were part of a pattern of assessments and decisions that helped send what many in the American military call “the good war” off course.

Miscalculation seems to be a hallmark of this war.

As defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed credit for toppling the Taliban with light, fast forces. But in a move that foreshadowed America’s trouble in Iraq, he failed to anticipate the need for more forces after the old government was gone, and blocked an early proposal from Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, and Mr. Karzai, the administration’s handpicked president, for a large international force. As the situation deteriorated, Mr. Rumsfeld and other administration officials reversed course and cajoled European allies into sending troops.

When it came to reconstruction, big goals were announced, big projects identified. Yet in the year Mr. Bush promised a “Marshall Plan” for Afghanistan, the country received less assistance per capita than did postconflict Bosnia and Kosovo, or even desperately poor Haiti, according to a RAND Corporation study. Washington has spent an average of $3.4 billion a year reconstructing Afghanistan, less than half of what it has spent in Iraq, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Rumsfeld announced that Afghanistan was secure in 2003.

As White House officials put together plans in the spring of 2003 for President Bush to land on the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and declare the end of major combat operations in Iraq, the Pentagon decided to make a similar, if less dramatic, announcement for Afghanistan.

On May 1, hours before Mr. Bush stood beneath a “Mission Accomplished” banner, Mr. Rumsfeld appeared at a news conference with Mr. Karzai in Kabul’s threadbare 19th-century presidential palace. “We clearly have moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and stabilization and reconstruction activities,” he said. “The bulk of the country today is permissive, it’s secure.”

The Afghanistan announcement was largely lost in the spectacle of Mr. Bush’s speech. But the predictions of stability proved no less detached from events on the ground.

And what was the U.S. doing when NATO was moving in?

To sell their new missions at home, British, Dutch and Canadian officials portrayed deployments to Afghanistan as safe, and better than sending troops to Iraq. Germany and Italy prevented their forces from being sent on combat missions in volatile areas. Those regions were to be left to the Americans, Canadians, British and Dutch.

Three months after announcing the proposed troop withdrawal, the White House Office of Management and Budget cut aid to Afghanistan by a third.

Today, one of the first of the Van Doos was killed in combat.

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

A Canadian soldier escorting a convoy in southern Afghanistan has died from injuries inflicted by a roadside bomb.

Simon Longtin, 23-year-old private from the Montreal area, was with the Royal 22nd Regiment, the Quebec-based Van Doos. He is the first member of the regiment to die in Afghanistan and the 67th Canadian military casualty overall since 2002.

[bush_cheney2004]

And what was the U.S. doing when NATO was moving in?

How many troops did Canada have deployed in 2003? How many tactical aircraft? How many attack helos? How many transport helos? How much intel gathering capability? How much sealift? How many casualties?

We already know who the PM was.

[weaponeer]

How many troops did Canada have deployed in 2003? How many tactical aircraft? How many attack helos? How many transport helos? How much intel gathering capability? How much sealift? How many casualties?

We already know who the PM was.

Troops about 2000, tactical aircraft, none, we have 80 , no where near enough, attack helos, none, Canadians don't think the military should have bullets after all we are Peace Keepers. Transport helos, none, we have none, even Botswana has some... Intel, linited, sealift none, casualtiesw, many thanks to the afore mentioned deficencies ... Canada would be a Banana Republic if we only had Bananas.....

[jbg]

Troops about 2000, tactical aircraft, none, we have 80 , no where near enough, attack helos, none, Canadians don't think the military should have bullets after all we are Peace Keepers. Transport helos, none, we have none, even Botswana has some... Intel, linited, sealift none, casualtiesw, many thanks to the afore mentioned deficencies ... Canada would be a Banana Republic if we only had Bananas.....

I read that all the time. But with a close, tight alliance with the Brits and the US, why do all three countries need to have all capabilities. You have better commandos and elite forces than we do.

Why duplicate?

[weaponeer]

I read that all the time. But with a close, tight alliance with the Brits and the US, why do all three countries need to have all capabilities. You have better commandos and elite forces than we do.

Why duplicate?

You need to have the capabilities because countries, even close allies have their own priorities. If an American solider is seriously wounded, and 30 miles away a Canadian soldier is also seriously wounded and there is only 1 MEDEVAC helo, and it is a US Army helo, who will they EVAC first?? They take care of their own. You need to have combat capabilities to cover the full spectrum of ops. Soverginty also becomes and issue, American jets patrolling Canadian skies, we need our own fighter force. You also need to be abvle to take turns in each area, Canadian SOF units rotate out and UK units take over, then the US etc.....

You have to play the political BS game, that's what it is BS!! Canadians do not like to spend $$ on an effective military because they have been brainwashed to believe that it will cost them their 3rd world healthcare system. They are lead to believe that if we buy 150 new fighter planes, Gramma will be kick out of the hospital to die in the gutter. This country is driven by a minority left wing agenda, because the rest of us have to work....

[jdobbin]

Troops about 2000, tactical aircraft, none, we have 80 , no where near enough, attack helos, none, Canadians don't think the military should have bullets after all we are Peace Keepers. Transport helos, none, we have none, even Botswana has some... Intel, linited, sealift none, casualtiesw, many thanks to the afore mentioned deficencies ... Canada would be a Banana Republic if we only had Bananas.....

Weaponeer, you responded to a diversion. The point of my post was that while Canada, Britain and the Dutch were moving into southern Afghanistan, the New York Times was saying the U.S. was moving troops out of Afghanistan to Iraq *and* cutting aid back in Afghanistan.

Three former U.S. ambassadors to Afghanistan all concurred they felt resources were being diverted to Iraq. Colin Powell wanted a larger international force almost immediately but was rebuffed by Rice and Rumsfeld. The U.S. wanted to run the show and only called for help when the situation was starting to deteriorate. However, rather than back up the international force, they continued to move troops, reduce intelligence gathering and cut aid back.

The CIA said that their best counter-terrorist people the agency had in Afghanistan were shifted to Iraq.

In 2006, it became as statistically dangerous in Afghanistan as it was in Iraq. A lot of that trouble came as a result of diverted resources to Iraq.

Edited August 20, 2007 by jdobbin

[bush_cheney2004]

Weaponeer, you responded to a diversion. The point of my post was that while Canada, Britain and the Dutch were moving into southern Afghanistan, the New York Times was saying the U.S. was moving troops out of Afghanistan to Iraq *and* cutting aid back in Afghanistan.

No, he responded to a direct question designed to cut through the BS, even when it comes from the NY Times. If Afghanistan was the most important focus, why didn't Canada commit to the same or greater levels that the US forces are reported to have retreated from? This has long been the rejoinder to those who complain about the diversion of US resources to Iraq, or any of a hundred other commitments the US government has. ( Example: Did Canadian Forces respond to Tsunami victims....yes, a day late and a dollar short with DART.)

Aghanistan is a NATO mission with UN sponsorship, it is not just America's war. Would Canada continue the fight in Afghanistan if all the Americans left (practical logistics aside)?

[jdobbin]

Latest story on the failures of the Afghan National Police.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...fghanistan/home

First the nectarines were handed over, then the watermelon. By lunchtime, the three Afghan National Police manning a traffic checkpoint had amassed a pleasant lunch from the “donations” of passing villagers stopped and “screened,” ostensibly for weapons or contraband.

Then, as dismayed Canadian soldiers looked on, the three policemen retired to a rock to dine while a steady stream of traffic jolted through the checkpoint.

“I don't want you to do that,” said Lieutenant Jocelyn Demetre, newly arrived in Afghanistan with Quebec's famed Vandoos – the Royal 22nd Regiment. Pointing to the watermelon, Lt. Demetre admonished: “That's extortion.”

The yawning disconnect between the ideals of civil policing and the reality of rampant corruption among ill-trained, ill-equipped, underpaid and deeply distrusted Afghan police is starkly evident, and not just in petty bribes at roadside checkpoints.

The Afghan Police pose a threat to security in Afghanistan every single day it seems. I don't know if they can be ever trusted by the people or Canadian forces.

Meanwhile, Taliban continue to target soft targets.

http://www.afgha.com/?q=node/4015

These persistent attacks represent the increasing threat posed to foreign workers by a wide array of militant and criminal gangs operating throughout Afghanistan. Recent attacks and a few failed attempts in the rather secure capital of Kabul mark a significant shift in militant’s tactics and capabilities. Woefully outgunned and outmanned against Coalition and ISAF forces, the Taliban are opting to attack ‘softer’ targets like weakly armed or unescorted convoys instead.

For instance, food and fuel trucks are now routinely attacked by militants along the Kabul-Kandahar highway in Taliban controlled areas of Zabul, Ghazni, and Kandahar. Other notorious truck hijackings are known to have occurred in Paktika, Paktia, Farah, Kunar, Logar, Laghman, Nangarhar and Nuristan. The ongoing ambushes and looting of truck deliveries became so bad this summer that the UN suspended food and aid deliveries in June to several insecure provinces to help protect their staff and vehicles.

"The people we're trying to reach with this food are 'food insecure' or vulnerable people,” said Richard Corsino, the World Food Program’s director for Afghanistan. “It makes what is already a difficult life that much more difficult,"