O'Connor on the Afghan War

[jdobbin]

What if the Tories are not in power in 2009?? If the job gets done, come home, if it does not we can stay. Perhaps reduce to a single battalion... There may be an even bigger threat to deal with by then, anything is possible......

I certainly hope Afghanistan is dealt with by 2009. General Hillier in his paper talks about a very long commitment though.

[Wilber]

It is all in the hands of our very competent military.

So they are responsible for diplomacy and development as well?

To a degree certainly. As they are the people doing the job, their opinion of the situation counts a great deal IMO.

[jdobbin]

To a degree certainly. As they are the people doing the job, their opinion of the situation counts a great deal IMO.

General Hillier has said the military is not the best suited for overall development and diplomacy. Somehow I don't think the military as being the best in running a school, do you? Protecting a school, yes, but not running a school. Hillier was saying it cost far more to use a professional soldier to build roads and bridges. He said the only reason they have been doing it is because it hasn't been secure enough for contractors.

In the areas that are secured, the military ought to, needs to, get development agencies and contractors in to build the infrastructure and services. This is what the 3Ds is all about. Two thousand soldiers can't be everywhere. Defence has to be their main assignment.

[tml12]

It is all in the hands of our very competent military.

So they are responsible for diplomacy and development as well?

To the extent that you can do that with the people that want to kill you, yes.

[jdobbin]

To the extent that you can do that with the people that want to kill you, yes.

And yet General Hillier says it is not the best use of his force.

[tml12]

To the extent that you can do that with the people that want to kill you, yes.

And yet General Hillier says it is not the best use of his force.

What is not the best use of his force?

[jdobbin]

What is not the best use of his force?

He said his force is best used for combat rather than diplomacy and development. He was right.

[Catchme]

Interesting insight from Paul Wells:

Rebalance. Negotiate.

For all that Canada has at stake in Afghanistan, it often seems the situation is evolving so rapidly it's hard to keep up. Two examples.

• Amid all the call from opposition parties for "rebalancing" the Afghan mission to enhance reconstruction efforts...

• Meanwhile, who's calling for negotiations with the Taliban? Hamid Karzai. I wonder whether the prime minister will send Peter MacKay to make fun of him, too

http://weblogs.macleans.ca/paulwells/

Of course the making fun comment is about this below and perhaps Harper and MacKay should have been listening to the call for an emergency debate, after all they are a minority government:

Emergency foreign policy debate unlikely: MacKay

In the wake of five Canadian casualties in two days in Afghanistan, Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe has called for the emergency session before Prime Minister Stephen Harper presents Canada's foreign policy to the United Nations on Sept. 20...

Duceppe's comments came shortly after NDP Leader Jack Layton reiterated his call to pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan by February of next year.

MacKay chided Layton for his recent calls for Canada to try to negotiate peaceful solutions with the Taliban, as well as with Hezbollah, in the Middle East.

"Is it next going to be tea with Osama bin Laden?" Mackay asked. "This cannot happen."

Jack ahead of the curve, too bad Mackay and Harper never listened to wisdom and truth

[tml12]

MacKay is correct. There is no debate on the mission...we had that in May.

Layton is nuts...does he understand the kind of people we are dealing with here?

[Wilber]

To a degree certainly. As they are the people doing the job, their opinion of the situation counts a great deal IMO.

General Hillier has said the military is not the best suited for overall development and diplomacy. Somehow I don't think the military as being the best in running a school, do you? Protecting a school, yes, but not running a school. Hillier was saying it cost far more to use a professional soldier to build roads and bridges. He said the only reason they have been doing it is because it hasn't been secure enough for contractors.

In the areas that are secured, the military ought to, needs to, get development agencies and contractors in to build the infrastructure and services. This is what the 3Ds is all about. Two thousand soldiers can't be everywhere. Defence has to be their main assignment.

Yes, defence has to be their main assignment and because of that they are the best judge of what is possible.

[tml12]

What is not the best use of his force?

He said his force is best used for combat rather than diplomacy and development. He was right.

Well I do hope some of us are adult enough to realize there are certain people out there we cannot negotiate with.

[weaponeer]

Hillier is right, it should not be up to the military to rebuild & govern. If the miltary can secure the place, and I believe they can, then you can bring in civilian contractors to rebuild. The miliatry cannot runs schools & should not, also, you do not want the military guarding schools forever, that is also a failure.

The military should be doing what it does best, closing with & destroying the enemy. Concentrate on the talibs, make the place safe for reconstruction....

[jdobbin]

Well I do hope some of us are adult enough to realize there are certain people out there we cannot negotiate with.

The diplomacy was supposed to be with the elected Afghan government, village elders, tribal leaders and for Pakistan.

[weaponeer]

In order for there to be success, the military needs to do it's job, the politicians need to do there's and then the NGOs, UN etc need to do there's. Iraq is an example of what happens if the politicians fail in there job. It is a team effort.

[Army Guy]

The Defence committee has a job to do as well. They need to get facts from as many sources as they can. They can't rely solely on the military brass, the diplomatic corps or the minister to tell them what is going on. It isn't just a photo op. It was the very first time that the committee has actually been in Afghanistan to actually get facts. It is a little hard to meet with village elders and hard working soldiers in a boardroom in Ottawa.

Yes they do have a job to do, but at what price. The ratio of convoys and patrols that make contact with the bad guys is still awful high, we have a saying here it's not "if" you are going to make contact but "when"...Those 3 sources of info you've mention produce extensive reports on everything from combat , criminal, economic activities in our area, Plus alot more. These are the same reports that our nation is making decissions on in regards to this mission. I do not see how they could want more info or facts.

Although true they would not be able to meet the village elders, or clan leaders, they have full access to returning soldiers.

You might think it is a photo op when an MP goes to a disaster site to survey the damage or a farmer's field to see how the crops are coming but it is their job. Let them do it and stop trying to prevent them from doing their work.

I think we would both agree that visting a disaster site and an active war zone are 2 different animals, I've yet to see any MP's vist a hurricane site while the hurricane was still active. I'm not trying to prevent anything, as it has already happened, i do agree with the decission to confine them to base.

What would the liberals and NDP, let alone the rest of the Canadian citizens reaction be if one or more of these committee members are killed...In your opinion would it help the mission, or would it fan the flames and earn our nation an early pull out...What damage would it do to our militaries reputation..It's alot to lose and gamble for little in return for something thats already been reported.

I keep hearing from people here that if only people knew what was going on, the support for the mission would get higher support.

Your right, it has been one of my major bitchs, but this dirrection is not the safest way to get that piont across, for all involved. As for the NDP, your right they have campaigned on a few military issues, retirement pensions benifits, loss of pay benifits from returning injuried members, and medical pension issues. and there might be a few more. although they may not be my favorite party i don't think this is polictical but rather based more on security, and really a photo op.

So they are responsible for diplomacy and development as well?

No, the diplomatic effort although part of the PRT, do not report to the military chain of command, but thru the diplomatic side of the house, They and the military chain of command drive the military reconstruction and development as well. In that regards they work as a team, with the diplomatic side having the last say, so to speak.

General Hillier has said the military is not the best suited for overall development and diplomacy. Somehow I don't think the military as being the best in running a school, do you? Protecting a school, yes, but not running a school. Hillier was saying it cost far more to use a professional soldier to build roads and bridges. He said the only reason they have been doing it is because it hasn't been secure enough for contractors.

In the areas that are secured, the military ought to, needs to, get development agencies and contractors in to build the infrastructure and services. This is what the 3Ds is all about. Two thousand soldiers can't be everywhere. Defence has to be their main assignment.

Your both right, however that does not mean we are not trained to do it, or we are incapable of doing it. And until more resources are poured in Afgan we do not have a choice. But even with them there we would still have to provide protection teams etc etc. i don't think we would actually find a whole lot of soldiers to employ else where.

[frogs]

In order for there to be success, the military needs to do it's job, the politicians need to do there's and then the NGOs, UN etc need to do there's. Iraq is an example of what happens if the politicians fail in there job. It is a team effort.

The military needs to get a real job, come home, politicians too! Not until they can learn what their own lives are about, are they qualified to live one, and then they will realize they don't need to force themselves on others, while stealing everyone's money.

[jdobbin]

Yes they do have a job to do, but at what price. The ratio of convoys and patrols that make contact with the bad guys is still awful high, we have a saying here it's not "if" you are going to make contact but "when"...Those 3 sources of info you've mention produce extensive reports on everything from combat , criminal, economic activities in our area, Plus alot more. These are the same reports that our nation is making decissions on in regards to this mission. I do not see how they could want more info or facts.

Although true they would not be able to meet the village elders, or clan leaders, they have full access to returning soldiers.

I think we would both agree that visting a disaster site and an active war zone are 2 different animals, I've yet to see any MP's vist a hurricane site while the hurricane was still active. I'm not trying to prevent anything, as it has already happened, i do agree with the decission to confine them to base.

What would the liberals and NDP, let alone the rest of the Canadian citizens reaction be if one or more of these committee members are killed...In your opinion would it help the mission, or would it fan the flames and earn our nation an early pull out...What damage would it do to our militaries reputation..It's alot to lose and gamble for little in return for something thats already been reported.

Your right, it has been one of my major bitchs, but this dirrection is not the safest way to get that piont across, for all involved. As for the NDP, your right they have campaigned on a few military issues, retirement pensions benifits, loss of pay benifits from returning injuried members, and medical pension issues. and there might be a few more. although they may not be my favorite party i don't think this is polictical but rather based more on security, and really a photo op.

No, the diplomatic effort although part of the PRT, do not report to the military chain of command, but thru the diplomatic side of the house, They and the military chain of command drive the military reconstruction and development as well. In that regards they work as a team, with the diplomatic side having the last say, so to speak.

Your both right, however that does not mean we are not trained to do it, or we are incapable of doing it. And until more resources are poured in Afgan we do not have a choice. But even with them there we would still have to provide protection teams etc etc. i don't think we would actually find a whole lot of soldiers to employ else where.

O'Connor was stalling for an entire year on the committee even visiting Kabul or Kandahar base. Eventually, the fact that every single other NATO country had sent committees to report back to their respective legislative bodies made it such an embarrassment for the government that they relented. I have no problem on not sending a patrol out just for the sake of the committee but the government was saying no towards a visit to the *entire* nation based on security.

O'Connor and his small team of officers and civilians went off base. And yes, they had a photographer with them. How was it safer for them? Wouldn't they have made a more tempting target?

The U.S. military has a far different view of its Defence committee. They want to show them everything they can because they see it as imperative. They don't pick and choose which party they like and dislike. You keep saying it is a photo-op. I saw few photos from the whole visit nor did I see any grandstanding.

As far as the diplomacy and development goes, I didn't say the military couldn't do it but Hillier says it is more expensive and takes away troops from defence.

I certainly hope this spring breaks the back of Taliban and that Afghanistan can take care of itself. My fear is that Afghanistan's corruption and Pakistan's interference make the job near impossible.

[White Doors]

In order for there to be success, the military needs to do it's job, the politicians need to do there's and then the NGOs, UN etc need to do there's. Iraq is an example of what happens if the politicians fail in there job. It is a team effort.

The military needs to get a real job, come home, politicians too! Not until they can learn what their own lives are about, are they qualified to live one, and then they will realize they don't need to force themselves on others, while stealing everyone's money.

Hey, well at least you put alot of thought into the situation... ~sarcasm off~

[Army Guy]

O'Connor was stalling for an entire year on the committee even visiting Kabul or Kandahar base. Eventually, the fact that every single other NATO country had sent committees to report back to their respective legislative bodies made it such an embarrassment for the government that they relented. I have no problem on not sending a patrol out just for the sake of the committee but the government was saying no towards a visit to the *entire* nation based on security.

I don't understand why i would be an embrassment to this nation, were not talking about the streets are full of pick pockets and muggers, we are talking about cold blooded killers , who would expend alot of thier people and assets to get ahold of one of these guys, to blackmail Canada in removing it's troops or something else....do we take that chance in seeing one of our defense committee members getting thier heads cut off on some vidio... When the info they seek is already alvailable. Does that sound reasonable.

O'Connor and his small team of officers and civilians went off base. And yes, they had a photographer with them. How was it safer for them? Wouldn't they have made a more tempting target?

Yes, they did but like me that is his job, accessing the situation he is the MDND after all, and i'm sure his reports are available for all to see. Was it any safer no it was not...and yes he did make a very tempting target, but then again what we don't know is how much of the battle group was used to make that happen nor was his group as large as this committees is.

The U.S. military has a far different view of its Defence committee. They want to show them everything they can because they see it as imperative. They don't pick and choose which party they like and dislike. You keep saying it is a photo-op. I saw few photos from the whole visit nor did I see any grandstanding.

I don't think it's a military decision, to say yes or no, it's a governmental one. I personally like to have all of them stay home, but i don't have a say. I keep saying it's a photo op because i don't see the value of the risk, all the info this committee could gather has already been gathered by other committees, and like i said before where do you draw the line, on whom may come over.

They just got back, we will have to wait and see if this whole trip was worth all the hoopla, and we'll wait to see what they do with the info they did mange to gather.

I certainly hope this spring breaks the back of Taliban and that Afghanistan can take care of itself. My fear is that Afghanistan's corruption and Pakistan's interference make the job near impossible.

Spring here is nearly here and soon they will be in full swing. I to pray that this will soon be over, but i know it's far from over and it will be some time before Afgan will be able to take care of it self. As for near impossiable ,yes it's tough and frustrating but not impossiable.

[Jenna]

I have lost all trust in our government, Liberal and Conservative, and am truly terrified of what's to come.

[Army Guy]

Froggy:

The military needs to get a real job, come home, politicians too! Not until they can learn what their own lives are about, are they qualified to live one, and then they will realize they don't need to force themselves on others, while stealing everyone's money.

Your onto us froggy, i knew it was just a matter of time before the nation found out, you don't write for the national inquirer do you....maybe your one of those new FLQ members, you know all talk no action...... but your right "We do need a real job", the government has been forcing us to hover around bus, train, and airports ,mugging poor inocent civilians as they make their way to thier cars, collecting unpaid taxes, to be used in our evil plot to take over unsuspecting countrys such as france. We are not worthy to live our pathic lives on your streets or towns...And you should make it your mission to confront those worthless dogs and let them know how you think.

[Jenna]

FLQ is propaganda

Watch the police state rise now, as these criminal gang members "pose a severe threat to our freedoms"

This entire war is a total set up, with vast amounts of people dying for no reason, other than to generate profits for the already wealthy.

As a member of the military, you should look into what exactly youre fighting for.

[M.Dancer]

Well, at least I can look forward to profits!!!

[jdobbin]

I don't understand why i would be an embrassment to this nation, were not talking about the streets are full of pick pockets and muggers, we are talking about cold blooded killers , who would expend alot of thier people and assets to get ahold of one of these guys, to blackmail Canada in removing it's troops or something else....do we take that chance in seeing one of our defense committee members getting thier heads cut off on some vidio... When the info they seek is already alvailable. Does that sound reasonable.

Yes, they did but like me that is his job, accessing the situation he is the MDND after all, and i'm sure his reports are available for all to see. Was it any safer no it was not...and yes he did make a very tempting target, but then again what we don't know is how much of the battle group was used to make that happen nor was his group as large as this committees is.

I don't think it's a military decision, to say yes or no, it's a governmental one. I personally like to have all of them stay home, but i don't have a say. I keep saying it's a photo op because i don't see the value of the risk, all the info this committee could gather has already been gathered by other committees, and like i said before where do you draw the line, on whom may come over.

They just got back, we will have to wait and see if this whole trip was worth all the hoopla, and we'll wait to see what they do with the info they did mange to gather.

Spring here is nearly here and soon they will be in full swing. I to pray that this will soon be over, but i know it's far from over and it will be some time before Afgan will be able to take care of it self. As for near impossiable ,yes it's tough and frustrating but not impossiable.

So you are saying that even Kabul was not suitable for the Defence committee? Like the minister, it *is* their job to investigate what Canada's soldiers are doing and where they are doing it.

The minister had 10 people with him. Exact same number as the Defence committee. Surely, this can't be about the numbers then.

What other committees have first hand knowledge?

The worst thing that could happen to soldiers in Afghanistan is for everyone to sit back in Ottawa and think they know what is happening in Afghanistan. And yet, that's your first choice.

As far as impossible goes: as soon as I hear about Canadian and NATO soldiers going into Pakistan, I'll believe it is possible. I think any beat cop will tell you that you can't defeat crime in one neighborhood while it is safe in the next neighborhood.

[Army Guy]

So you are saying that even Kabul was not suitable for the Defence committee? Like the minister, it *is* their job to investigate what Canada's soldiers are doing and where they are doing it.

Kabul is still risky, but nothing like down here in the south ,It's not Kabul they wanted to go it was around our AO here.

Perhaps i could see your piont if there was something majorily wrong with the MDND reports, or they were false, out of date etc etc ...but is it worth risking lives again for the same info. Do we all have to place our hands on a hot oven surface to find out it is hot.... And where do we draw the line, how many of these dog and pony shows do we have to entertain before all that are concerned comes to the same conclusion as the first report filled.

The minister had 10 people with him. Exact same number as the Defence committee. Surely, this can't be about the numbers then.

What other committees have first hand knowledge?

Numbers is a factor yes, i've tried to make this clear while staying within op sec, for 10 pers it is a major operation, that requires days of planning and excuting, many more lifes are put at risk to accomplish what getting the same info...i do not see the gain here, i'm i missing something, I agree with you the Canadian public does need to know what is going on here, but not at the cost of lives or the risk of lives getting the same info..

First hand knowledge is avail thru daily reports done by the military and the diplomatic sources with the PRT.

you are aware better than i who in the Harper cabinet as been here, as i'm ussaully stuck in the toolies. but the PM, MDND, Mr Mackay, CDS have all been over serveral times. each vist is fully documanted and filled and available thru chanels...your making it sound like the info is not trust worthy.

The worst thing that could happen to soldiers in Afghanistan is for everyone to sit back in Ottawa and think they know what is happening in Afghanistan. And yet, that's your first choice.

No not first choice, i think that the people need to be inform from other sources other than the media....But again where do you draw the line. when do we say enough, will it take someone dieing.