What do Canadians want in Afgan and why ?

[g_bambino]

You're right that Al Qaeda and others are able to flow across borders, but flowing is different to establishing, and if the mission in Afghanistan isn't completed there's an extremely strong possibility they'll flow right back in and things will return to the way they were before; all our sacrifice will be for naught.

My point is that they don't need a stable homebase.

No, but it greatly helps them.

So, yes, we have to reach a point where Afghanistan has a government that eschews Muslim extremism and is stable and strong enough to protect itself, without our aid. Such an end is in our national interest.

History has shown that Afghanistan is ungovernable as a political entity. Governments that have tried to eschew conservative Islam and enforce any kind of liberal agenda beyond the relatively easy to control urban centres have been shortlived. In short, the goal of establishing a strong central government is simply unrealistic, a bad strategy.

I don't think any Afghan government has to eschew traditional Islam, just fanatical Islam, a la Taliban.

Perhaps a singular, central government isn't the answer for the country - maybe separate countries, maybe a confederation of provinces like Canada, I don't have the expertise to say what's best. But any goal that ensures Afghanistan is no longer a fertile field for Muslim terroritsts is a good strategy.

[Black Dog]

No, but it greatly helps them.

They seem to do just as well in places where states can't project their power (like the border regions of Afghanistan/Pakistan or even Iraq).

I don't think any Afghan government has to eschew traditional Islam, just fanatical Islam, a la Taliban.

What do you mean by "fanatical Islam?"

Perhaps a singular, central government isn't the answer for the country - maybe separate countries, maybe a confederation of provinces like Canada, I don't have the expertise to say what's best. But any goal that ensures Afghanistan is no longer a fertile field for Muslim terroritsts is a good strategy.

According to its proponents, the strategy seems to be building a strong central government that can ensure democracy and human rights can flourish. Of course, central government, democracy and human rights are alien concepts to Afghanistan, so the odds of us being able to pull off that goal are, IMV, remote at best. If we want to fight terrorism, fine. But that may require abandoning the idea that Afghanistan will ever be anything more than a dirt-poor, tribal narco-state with an abhorrant, socially regressive culture and focus on making it a horrible place that at least doesn't harbour any threats to us.

[jdobbin]

Perhaps a singular, central government isn't the answer for the country - maybe separate countries, maybe a confederation of provinces like Canada, I don't have the expertise to say what's best. But any goal that ensures Afghanistan is no longer a fertile field for Muslim terroritsts is a good strategy.

Canada may not be able to ever shape things to that end. We could be fighting the same battles as we are now in ten years time, 20 years time and longer.

The only thing we might be able to do is act swiftly whenever a threat emerges. That would entail being nearby but not necessarily in Afghanistan.

[Catchme]

Did Afghanistan want us in there?

I'd be lying if i said yes, but then again once they declared they had taken Al Quida under thier wing and would protect them by force in nessicary. They did draw the line in the sand.

Todays elected Afgan government does want us there.

Please provide proof that Afghanistan said they would protect al Qaeda. Today's elected government says too many civilians are being killed by NATO and they want it stopped.

The bigger question is: to what extent should Canada commit blood and treasure to aiding peopel of nations when it is not in our natioanl interest to do so? Are we global babysitters or what?

It is a big question....That would depend on what exactly do we as a nation declare to be our National interests? And do we always have to be motivated by our national interests.... Is helping other nations in need not in our best interest now or down the road.

Awwww so sweet, feeding questions with pre-scripted answers it seems. Especially when Canada's "treasure" and blood" sacrifices have nothing to do with either our national interests or Afghanistan interests.

It is obvious that Afgan has nothing to offer our country... but the fact remains we did agree to help destroy this nations infra structure and remove it's government. And we should assist it in re building it.

That would be great, assuming we weren't having our military in there still destroying and killing civilians to protect Oil's/Opium's interests.

Are we global babysitters ? It is something that most Canadians take pride in , is our role as as you say babysitting. As for the cost, our soldiers freely commit thier blood in the case of Afgan anyways, and as for treasure come on, a quick look at what programs and studies our government pays out for, and we can't find a few dollars to assist one nation.

Oh, so now you want to try and spin as peace keeping without using the words" peace keeping". Then bring in the emotional ploy "our soldiers freely commit their blood" so we Canadians can look after the world. Hardly a reality there, and please, reducing Afghanistan peoples to the status of children, after they have resisted all other colonial occupiers throughout history stretches truth and logic a bit too much.

Plus 1.5 billion dollars budget allotments for being there, not including equipment, or the huge expense of rehabilitating those alive but physically or mentally disabled, or support for the orphans and widows, is hardly a few dollars. That redux is ludicrous.

[White Doors]

what? no mention of the evil Dominion?

[Catchme]

Perhaps a singular, central government isn't the answer for the country - maybe separate countries, maybe a confederation of provinces like Canada, I don't have the expertise to say what's best. But any goal that ensures Afghanistan is no longer a fertile field for Muslim terroritsts is a good strategy.

Canada may not be able to ever shape things to that end. We could be fighting the same battles as we are now in ten years time, 20 years time and longer.

The only thing we might be able to do is act swiftly whenever a threat emerges. That would entail being nearby but not necessarily in Afghanistan.

Need I remind people that the terrorists who allegedly did 911 were not Afghans? Nor were they Taliban.

[jdobbin]

Need I remind people that the terrorists who allegedly did 911 were not Afghans? Nor were they Taliban.

This was the type of response I was talking about. Dealing with the terrorist threat such as a training camp.

[Peter F]

Army Guy:

...a poll that suggests that over 54 % of our nation does not agree with our involment in Afgan. Perhaps one of those 54 % can explain to me WHY ? and how you decided on this course of action.

I am one of the 54%. Your question is reasonable and deserves a straight answer. I arrived at my position over time, based upon various suppositions and, since I know/knew nothing of Afghanistan prior to 2001, various articles (opeds and not) that I read in the printed/internet press. I have no TV, nor want one, so TV journalism (including internet 'video-journalism' if one can call it that) has not been a factor.

I did and do believe that military force will never end Islamic Radicalism/terrorism. Military force can overthrow governments and install different ones and/or govern through a Military Occupation...but neither of those things mean squat to the Faithfull.

Originally I was against Canadian intervention in Afghanistan (back in the days when JTF were the ones involved) for the very simple reason that any impact Canada may have on Afghanistan would be minimal at best. It seemed to me that the Northern Alliance once supported by the USAF and $$$ were quite capable of driving out the Taliban. They did. So the idea of sending in the JTF was political - symbolic support to the Americans in order to show that we care.

As time passed I came to believe that, yes, I suppose Canada should be involved in 'rebuilding' and providing security because the Karzai government was trying to govern a country ripped apart by war and internal warlord/Taliban powerstruggles. That would be early in 2003 sometime. Of course the story in those days was that the Karzai government needed support for the time it took for the government to trainup troops that would be able to provide security on thier own. How long does it take to train an army? two or three years.

So, I patiently waited. Meanwhile the USA invades Iraq. In Canada many are actually embarassed that Canadian troops are not alongside our American, British and Australian allies. Granatstien published and article in some newspaper or other actually criticizing the Government of the day for not committing Canadian troops on the grounds that we were missing a grand oportunity to provide the CAF with combat experience. I mention this only as an example of the level of embarassment felt by many Canadians. Many others in the press and parliament spoke of 'Shame' and 'Honour' and 'hanging heads' etc.

It started to occur to me that there was a large proportion of Canadians to whom 'Honour' and not reality was the determinant by which our government should/should not commit our forces. This, I thought, was an indication of trouble; commitments to feel good could possibly arise in the future.

meanwhile, if I am not mistaken, in 2004 Canada committed troops to a security operation in Kabul. Fair enough. Afghan troops are still in training. Security is important for those troops to be trained and the Karzai government to be established. At the time the word was that Karzai pretty much controlled only Kabul and not much else.

Then in late 2005 the government decided to commit combat troops to the Kandahar area in SE Afghanistan. This would not be a peackeeping role but a combat role. The idea to actually drive the re-established Taliban out of the area. This was welcomed with joy by many in the press. At last, Canada can be proud again. Our armed forces would be able to show their mettle and stand tall. Gen.Hilliers bombast particularly standing out in my memory. As I mentioned earlier - this, to me, is a bad sign. I feared the government was taking on far more than it could chew in order to satisfy the desperate 'wannabe's'. In that they 'wannabe tough MF'rs just like the Americans'. I thought/think that there is a military lobby pressuring the government to get involved in the war so that we could garner our share of glory too.

Meanwhile, everybody who attacks anything in Afghanistan was being called either 'Taliban' or 'Al Queda'.

Apparently the warlords of the ex-Northern Alliance were no longer interested in establishing power bases.

Meanwhile, these Taliban guys were launching a few attacks on exposed Afghan/US positions from time to time and losing huge amounts of troops doing so. 40 killed here, 30 there, 20odd somewhere else.

Considering that they are armed with assault rifles for the most part, backed up by a mortar or two, some MMGs and RPGs; and that they were attacking prepared postions defended by the equivalent small arms plus on-call artillery and air strikes. They were taking huge casualties in the process, against overwhelming firepower...yet continued to make such insane and pointless attacks.

This indicates to me that these evil Taliban guys, though poorly trained and poorly led, were actually committed to thier cause. So committed that they were willing to die for the cause. They actually believe, like fuzzy-wuzzies at Omdurman, that God is going to grant them victory.

And, they apparently appear out of nowhere. They have to recieve thier training somewhere, thier arms from somewhere, thier ammunition from somewhere, thier organization - such as it is - from somewhere. Yet there was zero mention where this 'somewhere' is. Somehwere remained hidden to the American 100% control of the air with the assumed regular reconnaisance flights, IR TV's, regular patrolling and no need to mention constant satellite surveilance. Yet they appeared out of nowhere and attack some minor, tactically meaningless position and press home thier attacks and only withdraw once inordinate casualties have been suffered. I would guess thier casualty rates would be at least 50% or so, if not more. Wich means that 60 odd Taliban guys closed on the position over the few preceeding days from dispersed origin and often unnoticed. Some amount of planning went into it.

Where were they all coming from? Where are they getting recruits? Why would anyone sign on to this outfit?

Then Canada goes on the offensive in operation whateveritwas. The operation is a success, of course. Yet there seems to be an element of surprise in the officership of the CAF. The Taliban fought from prepared positions; were competent enough with thier weapons to destroy a vehicle or two, had to be driven out of many positions or died holding them.

...and suddenly we needed Tanks, dammit. The enemy is actually defending themselves somehow.

And I ask, what kind of intelligence were the generals operating on? Did they think the enemy would only snipe? They seemed to think the Taliban would not meet the Canadians in battle. Who was feeding them this bullshit? Why did they not think that Tanks wouldn't be necessary? Or perhaps they did consider sending tanks but budgetary restraints over-rode thier concerns.

That was clue number two that we were biting off more than we could chew.

In an appearance before the Senate Defence committe the General in charge of organizing supply and support for the Afghan mission mentioned that the CAF was dangerously close to overcommitment of its forces. He was trying to avoid the possiblity of reducing the time at home in the standard 36 months rotation. Another sign of overcommittment.

My 17yearold son, enrolled in the Voltigeurs de Quebec, was called and asked if he would be willing to volounteer for Afghanistan. He said he would think about it. His mother told him she would break his legs if he did agree. Another clue to overcommitment.

So now we are in Afghanistan, not to fill the time gap necessary for an army to be trained, but to bring them good government, a functioning economy, education for all, and peace in our time.

I say ok, we are committed til 2009. So be it. At that point, either Karzai stands or falls on his own. If his government falls to insurgency that tells me that Afghans themselves don't support him. If its the Taliban that does the toppling then that tells me that Afhans have no interest in stopping them.

No government stands without the support of the people. If Afghans don't support what we and Nato and the west are trying to do, then no amount of cash or dead Taliban will change that.

And then there is also Pakistan, the source of recruiting, planning, and supplying. Yet Pakistan is untouchable for they are our allies. There will be no end to the Taliban as long as Musharif is turning a politically necessary blind eye to the support being given to our enemy within the borders of that country.

There is the argument that on a humanitarian level we should remain for however long it takes. True enough. But then, by the same logic we should be invading North Korea, China, Kyrgystan, Turkmenistan, Sri Lanka, Mayanmar, Tanzania, Fiji, Pakistan and of course Darfur, Iran, Iraq. Syria, Gaza, Lebanon and many other places.

The fact is we can't do that, nor do we have any intention of doing that. What should be the principal reason for Canadian military intervention is strategic interest. As it is we are involved in a Civil War in Afghanistan, a nation that had zero strategic interest to us before when they were an organized functioning country, and certainly has less interest as a broken, corrupt, economically ruined country. Certainly we can feed them money and expertise and influence. But we shouldn't be propping up a government for the Afghans who don't seem to want to prop it up themselves.

Thats my take. We're in over our heads and if we're not carefull we're going to find ourselves buried.

[Army Guy]

Please provide proof that Afghanistan said they would protect al Qaeda. Today's elected government says too many civilians are being killed by NATO and they want it stopped.

And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. (Applause.) Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. (Applause.) Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

Pres speach

The Al-Jazeera correspondent asked, "Now, let's return to the issue of Osama bin Laden. Do you think it is just that a people be attacked and that a country be destroyed on account of one person? You are protecting one person, and you are destroying your country on account of one person. How do you defend this position of yours?"

Haqani responded, "There is no difference between Osama and his community ... and those in Kashmir, Chechnya, Uzbekistan. ..." Haqani spoke of the willingness of those in this community to defend each other, "like they would fight for their own children, for their own land, for their own selves," and he emphasized that they would fight as one in opposition to "the infidels."

interview.

We appreciate the fact the aid has doubled in the past year and there is more coordination on disbursements. I think that Canada's help in the area of security is strategically crucial.

Pres speech?

He said Canada's role was indispensable in the battle against Taliban militants and emphasized the importance of non-military support -- such as reconstruction and protecting human rights.

"Canada has made a tremendous difference in the lives of millions of Afghans already. Your country is helping us on a daily basis,'' he said.

My Webpage

Agan foreign minster.

Awwww so sweet, feeding questions with pre-scripted answers it seems. Especially when Canada's "treasure" and blood" sacrifices have nothing to do with either our national interests or Afghanistan interests.

I think before one ask the questions they should know what the answers are. So what are our interests, and what is the interests of Afganistan. Explain what you really mean here.

That would be great, assuming we weren't having our military in there still destroying and killing civilians to protect Oil's/Opium's interests

What oil interests, and yes the opuim interests, does it make good business sense to you or anyone else here to spend more 10 of bils in defending a couple of bil dollar industry...

So your one of the 54 % of Canadians that have made up thier minds based on facts you make up or here say. Get off your ass and get on a plane see for yourself ask the afganis yourself, stop taking the media reports as gospel...I'm telling you they rarely leave the camp, file thier reports daily, where are they getting half the crap they print....only a very few have actually gone out with us and interviewed the people and those have been chastised for thier efforts "reporting the truth"....

But hey i'm just a dumb grunt who's opinion does not count, why because i work for the government...i'm one of those guys that lived outside the wire for months at a time and had daily contact with "those Afganis" whom you've said wanted us out now....Although i will not sit here and tell you they all loved us and wanted us there. i will say that most where grateful and wanted us to stay, they may of not been happy with everything we did , they still prefered us over the taliban.

[Figleaf]

Excellent post, PeterF -- thorough and well thought out.

Question: who are the Voltageurs?

[g_bambino]

No, but it greatly helps them.

They seem to do just as well in places where states can't project their power (like the border regions of Afghanistan/Pakistan or even Iraq).

Well, though they do "well" (for terrorists, that is) outside of the reach of government protection, they do worse compared to when not within the cuckold of a state gov't. Regard your (accurate) comments re. Pakistan and its unwillingness to deal with the issue of Taliban and other Islamic fundamentalist groups either hiding within or obtaining supplies across Pakistan's borders. Though Pakistan does not overtly support and embrace the Taliban and their ilk, it's not exactly making much effort to rid its nether regions of these people and their supply lines. If Pakistan did this it would, obviously, be even more difficult for Muslim extremists to organize and operate.

I don't think any Afghan government has to eschew traditional Islam, just fanatical Islam, a la Taliban.

What do you mean by "fanatical Islam?

The type of Islam that the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and their like-minded bretheren preach.

Perhaps a singular, central government isn't the answer for the country - maybe separate countries, maybe a confederation of provinces like Canada, I don't have the expertise to say what's best. But any goal that ensures Afghanistan is no longer a fertile field for Muslim terroritsts is a good strategy.

According to its proponents, the strategy seems to be building a strong central government that can ensure democracy and human rights can flourish. Of course, central government, democracy and human rights are alien concepts to Afghanistan, so the odds of us being able to pull off that goal are, IMV, remote at best. If we want to fight terrorism, fine. But that may require abandoning the idea that Afghanistan will ever be anything more than a dirt-poor, tribal narco-state with an abhorrant, socially regressive culture and focus on making it a horrible place that at least doesn't harbour any threats to us.

Well, that's quite right. We shouldn't expect to depart the region leaving a Charteresque Shangri-La behind us. But we should ensure that we leave a relatively stable gov't (which means one able to supply the Afghans with what they desire, thereby gaining their support), or gov'ts, that isn't virulently anti-western and fills, and has the strength to remain in, any void of power that might otherwise be re-occupied by the Taliban or some similar organization.

[Peter F]

Question: who are the Voltageurs?

Its the local Quebec city militia unit.

Voltigeurs de Quebec

[Army Guy]

Thank you for your detailed reply, it has brought a few things to light that i have forgotten or had to do research on , a learning experiance for me anyway.

I did and do believe that military force will never end Islamic Radicalism/terrorism. Military force can overthrow governments and install different ones and/or govern through a Military Occupation...but neither of those things mean squat to the Faithfull.

For as long as i can remember military force is not the only players on the team, there is a diplomatic mission, plus many civilian agencies involved, including RCMP, elections Canada, Dept of corrections, ETC, on top of the PRT teams which does duplicate some of the above efforts. so it is a combined effort, and at this time it is the only solution to the insurgent warfare problem. And a better solution needs to be found or we will soon have to bend to the faithfull wishes and demands.

And all this effort does take time, unfortunatly longer than Canadians have patients for.

Originally I was against Canadian intervention in Afghanistan (back in the days when JTF were the ones involved) for the very simple reason that any impact Canada may have on Afghanistan would be minimal at best. It seemed to me that the Northern Alliance once supported by the USAF and $$$ were quite capable of driving out the Taliban. They did. So the idea of sending in the JTF was political - symbolic support to the Americans in order to show that we care.

Lets not forget about operation Apollo which was happening around the same time oct 2001 until Nov 2003.

our support and deployments were considerable larger than a det of JTF guys.

OP Appollo

As time passed I came to believe that, yes, I suppose Canada should be involved in 'rebuilding' and providing security because the Karzai government was trying to govern a country ripped apart by war and internal warlord/Taliban powerstruggles. That would be early in 2003 sometime. Of course the story in those days was that the Karzai government needed support for the time it took for the government to trainup troops that would be able to provide security on thier own. How long does it take to train an army? two or three years.

Todate they Afgan army stands at about 35,000 pers, and grads about 1200 soldiers every 2 weeks NATO wants those numbers at 70,000 by 2009 a very tall order. but those timmings and figures are for a basic soldier and do not take into account the need to train a strong NCO corp and officer corp the men that are required to lead them into battle. That takes years of training, and experiance, unfortunitly they are learning the hard way, by doing it in combat conditions. In the west it takes years of training in a training enviroment (no one is actually shoting back at you, and mistakes don't cost lives) to produce leaders " hence why the is western soldiers actually attached to afgan units.

Then in late 2005 the government decided to commit combat troops to the Kandahar area in SE Afghanistan. This would not be a peackeeping role but a combat role. The idea to actually drive the re-established Taliban out of the area. This was welcomed with joy by many in the press. At last, Canada can be proud again. Our armed forces would be able to show their mettle and stand tall. Gen.Hilliers bombast particularly standing out in my memory. As I mentioned earlier - this, to me, is a bad sign. I feared the government was taking on far more than it could chew in order to satisfy the desperate 'wannabe's'. In that they 'wannabe tough MF'rs just like the Americans'. I thought/think that there is a military lobby pressuring the government to get involved in the war so that we could garner our share of glory too.

I just want to piont out that from day one our mission in afgan has been a combat one, I've completed 2 tours in afgan one in Kabul, and one in Kanadar, and did spend many days outside the wire in Kabul doing patrols, ambushes, or hunting down bad guys , but i would not compare the 2 , with Kanadar operations being larger, and longer, and far more intense.

As for the attitude you talk of i can relate to as i've had it as well, eager to test all those years of training and experiance, now that i have, it's not something i'm eager to test again, war has a way of changing all that.

And as for glory there is none, just mad minutes as some author once said, filled with adreniline and fear and occasional prayer, but no glory, and when it's all done and the adreniline is subsided and the rush is gone, all that is left is reflection, guilt, and sadness for comrads that did not make it thru...

and after all that , and you've made up your mind that this is insane.... until your patrol enters another Afgan village and you see, smell, and taste what the taliban are capable of, and to whom they are carrying it out on. And you vow to do what you can do to stop it all, to help those that can not defend themselfs and the cyle starts all over again.

Something that thousands of Canadian soldiers have done every day since we have arrived in afgan, and yet they volunteer to come back, not because we want combat, not because we like killing, not because we want glory,medals,parades. because it is the right thing to do, because it's the Canadian thing to do, and that is what those that have served before us would have done. It's hard to articulate why i or others like me are compelled to go back.

Meanwhile, everybody who attacks anything in Afghanistan was being called either 'Taliban' or 'Al Queda'.

Apparently the warlords of the ex-Northern Alliance were no longer interested in establishing power bases.

This is wrong, and is a result of the media finding it easier to slot them into two groups. NATO has a slot for everyone and every group.

I'm sorry i've run out time and will get back to this tommorow.

[Army Guy]

Considering that they are armed with assault rifles for the most part, backed up by a mortar or two, some MMGs and RPGs; and that they were attacking prepared postions defended by the equivalent small arms plus on-call artillery and air strikes. They were taking huge casualties in the process, against overwhelming firepower...yet continued to make such insane and pointless attacks

This is how insurgent warfare is played, thier own cas are not a factor, thier aim is to produce NATO cas at any cost, look at how Canada reacted to the deaths in OP Mudusa, they know that they are going to get miliage out of our deaths , meaning they will sway public opinion in the west which is the sole goal of insurgent warfare...sway public opinion enough and a country leaves packing up it's troops, leaving them with a victory regardless of what happens on the battle field.

So to them it is not insane and piontless, it is a means of winning.

This indicates to me that these evil Taliban guys, though poorly trained and poorly led, were actually committed to thier cause. So committed that they were willing to die for the cause. They actually believe, like fuzzy-wuzzies at Omdurman, that God is going to grant them victory.

Don't let anyone tell you they are poorly trained or poorly led, these people are warriors in the true sense they've been doing this since they were small kids. top off all this and then add religion and brain washing and your correct some are willing to die for thier cause, i say some because the will to live is strong in everyone and when faced with a split second decission to live or die most will pick surrender.

They have to recieve thier training somewhere, thier arms from somewhere, thier ammunition from somewhere, thier organization - such as it is - from somewhere. Yet there was zero mention where this 'somewhere' is. Somehwere remained hidden to the American 100% control of the air with the assumed regular reconnaisance flights, IR TV's, regular patrolling and no need to mention constant satellite surveilance

All i can really say on this , is nothing moves with out NATO seeing it. They have there reasons for not making it public, as you can well imagine why.

Where were they all coming from? Where are they getting recruits? Why would anyone sign on to this outfit?

The recruits are easy, money talks and will buy anything including a life, why would they sign up, to feed thier families is a big one, loyality to thier clan is another, loyal to thier religion...NATO is slowly catching on paying Afgan army pers more giving them more benifits but it really has a long way to go.

Then Canada goes on the offensive in operation whateveritwas. The operation is a success, of course. Yet there seems to be an element of surprise in the officership of the CAF. The Taliban fought from prepared positions; were competent enough with thier weapons to destroy a vehicle or two, had to be driven out of many positions or died holding them.

...and suddenly we needed Tanks, dammit. The enemy is actually defending themselves somehow.

The surprise was the actual numbers of taliban in OP Mudusa, but then again we did give them days in which to prepare, we gave them advanced warning of the date of the attack, by dropping leaflets to the civilians warning them to leave...

As for them having to be driven out or dieing in place thats true, but the speed in which we attacked, bringing to bear maxium fire power that we had available did not give them much of a chioce. by this time we had already suffer cas, and were not in the mood to talk each of them them out, but rather more interested in finishing this so we could be with our dead and wounded. It's hard to explain those days of combat during Op mudusa, but to say we met an enemy that out number us , were dug in, in prepared postions and killed them by the hundards has got to say serveral things. This battle was as intense as any describe in history, that Canadian soldiers are second to no one, and that the Taliban can be defeated on the battle field.

As for the need of tanks, every seen 10 ft grass fields, so thick and dense that a 25,000 lb 8x8 veh could not penatrate, thats alot of dope. And those trees, harder than anything we have in Canada, we tried to clear them with combat dozers, with little effect, tried cutting them with chainsaws, some what more effective but still did not clear them, we tried using explosives most required serveral attempts....now put a 45 ton tank on the ground thier is not a tree in afgan you could not mow down, or a mud wall you could not drive thru...and the new tamks are closer to 70 tonnes a big multiplyer on the battle field..Yes they can be defeated with what we have over there now, we've proven that...but having tanks means saving lives, our lives...

In an appearance before the Senate Defence committe the General in charge of organizing supply and support for the Afghan mission mentioned that the CAF was dangerously close to overcommitment of its forces. He was trying to avoid the possiblity of reducing the time at home in the standard 36 months rotation. Another sign of overcommittment.

This is not new news, the fact that we can not support any other missions is proof of that, as for having 36 months at home i wish...most are lucky to be home for a year, with the 1 st brig and 2 and brig doing most of the missions , our 5 th brig french comrads will have to explain why they are just starting to go on missions in any numbers... But then again we have always been over committed. there is no funding for expansion, that is required...

[Catchme]

Great military propaganada here lately, last time I heard this type of stuff was when the US military shills trying to get more fodder for their war machine, as well as trying to militarize people's thinking, in the lead up to invading Iraq, on all the American political forums.

Army Guy, apparently you did not really want to know what Canadians want, as it seems you are trying to tell them what they should want instead.

Canadians want exactly what the Afghans want, our military presence out of there. The Karzi government is even stating the type of actions occuring must stop, the killing of civilians must stop and negotiations must begin.

And now we have the CPC trying to stop the human rights investigative committee from finding out the truth.

[Army Guy]

Great military propaganada here lately, last time I heard this type of stuff was when the US military shills trying to get more fodder for their war machine, as well as trying to militarize people's thinking, in the lead up to invading Iraq, on all the American political forums.

Yes you've caught me, I'm a military propagandist hidden deep inside the confines of NDHQ, locked in a vault so i can spread evil military propaganda. my goals are to lengthen the mission in Afgan, endanger the lives of my comrads, spend as much as the tax payers dollars as i can, and keep soldiers away from thier families and loved ones....My piont is that you and many Canadians don't have a clue why soldiers are putting so much into this mission, nor do you care, either why they think that way or do you care anything about the Afgan people.

Army Guy, apparently you did not really want to know what Canadians want, as it seems you are trying to tell them what they should want instead

Actually, i did want to hear what they had to say, my comments are correcting some info that they have provided , as it may give them some more incite other than what is printed in the media.

Canadians want exactly what the Afghans want, our military presence out of there. The Karzi government is even stating the type of actions occuring must stop, the killing of civilians must stop and negotiations must begin.

Perhaps you can provide some proof that the Afgans want us out. but then again you've already made up your mind, that the Afgan people don't deserve what our nation has to offer.

AFgan

[Black Dog]

g_bambino

Well, that's quite right. We shouldn't expect to depart the region leaving a Charteresque Shangri-La behind us. But we should ensure that we leave a relatively stable gov't (which means one able to supply the Afghans with what they desire, thereby gaining their support), or gov'ts, that isn't virulently anti-western and fills, and has the strength to remain in, any void of power that might otherwise be re-occupied by the Taliban or some similar organization.

While I recognize these are more modest goals than what has been advanced so far in the PR offensive, I'm still skeptical. The implicit assumption of the model is that Afghans cannot manage their own affairs and thus require our aid and guidance to do so. If that is the case, then we're going to be there for a very long time. If not the case, and the people of Afghanistan are simply not buying what we're selling, then perhaps the possibility that our security considerations may be incompatable with Afghan interests must be considered; eventually, something has to give. But what?

[g_bambino]

g_bambino

Well, that's quite right. We shouldn't expect to depart the region leaving a Charteresque Shangri-La behind us. But we should ensure that we leave a relatively stable gov't (which means one able to supply the Afghans with what they desire, thereby gaining their support), or gov'ts, that isn't virulently anti-western and fills, and has the strength to remain in, any void of power that might otherwise be re-occupied by the Taliban or some similar organization.

While I recognize these are more modest goals than what has been advanced so far in the PR offensive, I'm still skeptical. The implicit assumption of the model is that Afghans cannot manage their own affairs and thus require our aid and guidance to do so. If that is the case, then we're going to be there for a very long time. If not the case, and the people of Afghanistan are simply not buying what we're selling, then perhaps the possibility that our security considerations may be incompatable with Afghan interests must be considered; eventually, something has to give. But what?

Well, I don't want to sound like I'm some sort of expert on the topic, but it seems to me that the Afghans who didn't belong to or support the Taliban indeed did not have the means to support themselves or manage their affairs - hence, it was so easy for the Taliban to breeze in and walk all over them. So, it would seem they need our assistance until such point when they can become self-reliant. I think the Afghans who want to live under Taliban rule are actually in the great minority, so most will buy what we're selling, as long as what we're selling isn't too drastically foreign to them. I certainly hope that's the case, and not the latter.

[Figleaf]

Something is striking me as a little strange about the Afghan business.

The Afghani fighters are renowned worldwide as tough, effective warriors. Our mission there stresses the dangers soldiers continually face from the 'enemy', and the seriousness with which their capabilities must be regarded. The Afghan government, it is said, needs NATO help to stand against irregular forces composed of determined Afghanis.

And yet, for some strange reason, the moment an Afghani signs on the dotted line and gets his army uniform he suddenly becomes an ineffective third world loser who can't stand up to the 'Taliban' without paternalistic western armies to strengthen his spine.

There is a disconnect here.

[Army Guy]

Yes the Afganis are very good at insurgent warfare, where they operate in small numbers with very limited support such as from the air, or ground based arty, etc etc. and without taking anything away from the Afgan insurgents, but anyone can be effective at insurgent warfare. the odds are in thier favour.

The afgan army are by no means losers, what they lack is modern equipment. part of the the problem is education, every done the math on a arty strike or calling in fast air, there is more to soldiering than just firing your wpn and hoping you hit something. thier is leadership, wpns training, equipment capabilities, offensive and defensive drills, the list goes on forever...all made harder to teach or learn when you can't read or write. It is these skills that NATO is teaching and they take years to develope capable soldiers.

[Figleaf]

Why can't the Afghan army confront the Taliban on their own?

[M.Dancer]

Does anyone know whyt the Taliban can't cronfront the Afghan gov't on their own? Why do they need the support of Pakistan militants, Iran and Alqaeda....are there any othew stupid questions?

[Army Guy]

Sorry should have explained it better, there is more involved in military operations then there is involved with insurgent warfare, for example most insurgent groups operate in section or plt size 12 to 30 troops.

while fighting insurgents by regular army troops most of operations involve company levels 100 to 150 people, there is a big differnce in tactics used, logistical matters get very complicated, plus the support ie air support, arty support gets very complicated. 2 different animals.

In some cases they are, most of the time a small group of NATO pers tag along such as omlet ops, the last canadain killed was with the omlet.

[Figleaf]

I'm sorry, I must be formulating my question inaptly. Let me put it this way ...

Why are the troops available to Karzai's faction inferior (in numbers, capabilities, whatever) to the other forces, such that they need Western support and training to make them competitive?

[Army Guy]

Why are the troops available to Karzai's faction inferior (in numbers, capabilities, whatever) to the other forces, such that they need Western support and training to make them competitive?

Numbers right now thier are more than 30,000 reg Afgan troops, they graduate over 1200 troops a week.

There is many problems with thier army, lack of pay, which they recently got a raised but they need to go futher, lack of benifits, they just implimented a leave policy, allowing troops to go home for holidays etc.

Capabilities, other than small arms the Afgan army has none, no tanks, aircraft, arty, the list goes on.

One has to remember if one gets into a fight one has to ensure he has a bigger stick to have the advantage and keep your cas down.

Western support, again western forces are providing everything that the Afgans are missing, tanks, aircraft, arty...plus logistical support, ammo, rations, etc..

Training. Like i said anyone can be an insurgent, it does not take a whole lot of training, or equipment. but to fight as a cohesive group, where nobody fights as an indiv but plays a small part in a collective group with a common goal...that takes training and time. without it ,

it would be like watching a paintball game, lots of indivs running around getting shot very few actually left alive at the end of the game...the tactics we use, we suffer few cas, and all the bad guys are done.