Canada in Afghanistan: Are we doing this right?

[August1991]

I have been thinking about this for some time now and I think it's a relevant thread in this Federal category.

First, let me get my prejudices out of the way. I agreed with Chretien's decision to participate in NATO's intervention in Afghanistan. I also agreed with Chretien's decision not to take part in Bush's coalition to oust Saddam Hussein.

[briefly, in Afghanistan, we had to support our NATO commitments and we had to oppose the Taliban regime. It had given support to al-Qaeda and was a menace to the West. In the case of Iraq, I thought diplomacy a better alternative to invasion. Foreigners should think twice before getting involved in internecine disputes. Imagine if foreigners had gotten directly involved in Canada's NEP or Meech Lake?]

I heard an American journalist (the wife of the Afghan ambassador to Canada) speak about this conflict on the CBC today. She gave the same two reasons Harper has used. First, we are building a new Afghanistan. (Afghan women will be able to go to school.) Second, Canada is once again assuming its rightful place in the world. With this new century, Canada is returning back to where it was decades ago: A military force on the side of good.

These two points give my reason for this OP.

First of all, we are not in Afghhanistan to build a new country. If Afghan girls go to school, that will be an affair of Afghans. One of Canada's ambassadors to Kabul said that it would take five generations to bring Afghanistan into the modern world. I think he was optimistic. Afghans are a pragmatic but superstitious and stubborn lot. CIDA is wasting its time (and our money).

Second, we should not be in Afghanistan as part of some scheme to make Canadians proud or pretend this is another "liberate Holland" moment. We should not spend billions (and I mean billions) on military hardware to make ourselves proud. This isn't 1939 and Harper is not using our money to buy his place at the Table of the Just.

-----

So, here's my point.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the US military is invincible to any conventional force in the world. But the US (and Canada) do not face now conventional forces.

For the life of me, I do not understand how a young Canadian soldier, killed while driving by a planted bomb, advances anything in anyway. As George Patton said, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Yet, what we are doing is making our young bastards die, supposedly, for our country. And we honour this.

There's more.

The Air India tragedy was a disaster in two ways. First, it happened. Second, it took 20 years to investigate. The same bureaucracy behind the Air India tragedy is organizing our Afghan efforts. If that's not enough, consider the RCMP. There was a time when people said it would be better if we treated foreign military affairs as a policing operation - the implication was that the RCMP is more competent than DND. Really? (Indeed the kind of people who organized the Air India tragedy are precisely the kind of people we face in Afghanistan and elsewhere.)

The US bureaucracy in Washington is no better. (The INS mailed out a visa renewal notice to Mohammed Atta in December 2001.)

The Leftist term for all of this is "quagmire". Is it? Should we be defeatist?

IMV, our fight in Afghanistan is worthy but it should be clear what we want. We don't want more regimes harbouring people capable of flying big planes into big buildings. And we should accomplish this goal in the most direct and obvious way possible.

I don't know how we should do this but I don't think sending young guys in heavy gear in heavy vehicles to get blown apart by random bombs accomplishes anything.

If it's a war of attrition or nerves, we lose.

[ScottSA]

No, if it's a war of attrition with a 20:1 bodycount, we win. Our mistake is not going in on full auto, and until we bleed a whole lot more, we're not going to do that.

But to approach every tactical or bureaucratic mistake as if it is proof positive of a "quagmire" makes no sense whatsoever.

[margrace]

Yes August, I agree with you. I too thought we should be there and could make a difference, but sacrificing our young people is not the way to do it. We, as a people, cannot force another country to think our way.

The Afghanists have to want to change, they have to fight and die for it, not our people. It will not matter how many people are sent in it will continue until they stop it or not as they want.

Vietnam is a prime example of what happens when other countries interfere and try to change things. We have only united the whole population against us. It is their country, it is their war and as long as Mr. Harper refuses to listen to Canadians, Canadians will die.

A lot of the problems in these countries were started by western domination and interference many years ago. England to name one and her empire probably made the English the most hated people in the world at the time. Killing women and children in another country does not make me a proud Canadian.

And ScottSA why should our young people bleed. Do you have sons and daughters in this war, are you willing to send them or go and fight yourself?

[ScottSA]

Yes August, I agree with you. I too thought we should be there and could make a difference, but sacrificing our young people is not the way to do it. We, as a people, cannot force another country to think our way.

The Afghanists have to want to change, they have to fight and die for it, not our people. It will not matter how many people are sent in it will continue until they stop it or not as they want.

Vietnam is a prime example of what happens when other countries interfere and try to change things. We have only united the whole population against us. It is their country, it is their war and as long as Mr. Harper refuses to listen to Canadians, Canadians will die.

A lot of the problems in these countries were started by western domination and interference many years ago. England to name one and her empire probably made the English the most hated people in the world at the time. Killing women and children in another country does not make me a proud Canadian.

And ScottSA why should our young people bleed. Do you have sons and daughters in this war, are you willing to send them or go and fight yourself?

Yes, and that is irrelevant. Whether I go or my sons or daughters go has nothing to do with the issue.

I love the way you folks take single examples and try to extrapolate from them into great universal truisms. I mean stuff like this: "Vietnam is a prime example of what happens when other countries interfere and try to change things. We have only united the whole population against us." Really? What is the invasion of Germany and Japan examples of? Last I heard they changed a lot, and they're not united against us. Then there's Vietnam and cambodia...the Khmer Rouge weren't very happy about it I guess, but they're all on trial now, so I don't know how much uniting they're up for this week. Why gosh...then there's the entire age of colonialism in which, revisionist historians notwithstanding, the general populace by and large supported the imposed political structure (in the British colonies anyway). I was in India 20 years after the Raj left, and there were still a great many people who wished it would return. If they hadn't, I don't imagine they would have adopted the political trappings of the colonizers when they left. Your assertion that England was universally hated was just pulled out of a revisionist hat.

So really, it turns out that Vietnam is just a prime example of Vietnam.

As for Harper listening to people, this is pure rhetoric. You just don't like it because he's not listening to you. Thank God for small miracles.

[runningdog]

well said August. I, and the majority of Canadians, agree with your point of view.

[fellowtraveller]

Do you have sons and daughters in this war, are you willing to send them or go and fight yourself?

This type of comment is borders on the downright stupid.

Our miltiary is entirely composed of adult volunteers. 100% adult, 100% volunteer. They understand and accept that they can and wwill be put in harms way by politicians. It is integral to the job they voluntarily take on as adults. The worst thing we as a people could do would be to task them with something dangerous, then senfd them off with inadequate equipment - the way it used to be. Now at least, the govt is willing to give them a chance at surviving the mission by outfitting them with some modern gear. This has not gone unnoticed by the grunts doing the heavy lifting, it is a palpable show of commitment and a sea change from the 90s.

If my son or daughter chose to join the military, I would respect their decision because I know it would be a considered and reasoned decison.. They have been raised to think for themselves, unlike some sheeple here

[Mad_Michael]

As it stands in Afghanstan right now, all the nation-builders and peacekeepers in the world are absolutely totally useless.

If Afghanistan was not overrun by the Taliban, then they could do their own nation-building - they could do their own peacekeeping. But they can't - why? Because the Taliban will shoot them.

So, if Canada wants to do its part for 'world peace and security' and help Afghanistan, that means we must send soldiers to go shoot people (and potentially get shot at or blown up). Once the nation is free of Taliban control, then and only then, can one engage in nation-building and peacekeeping.

So for all those who feel that Canada has no business sending our troops into a dangerous warzone, that's fine. But you can't build a nation in a warzone.

If people believe in humanitarian missions and helping to build a better and safer world, then they will support sending troops into Afghanistan. If they can't support the idea of sending Canadian troops into a warzone, then they have no business lecturing us about the importance or desirability of nationbuilding or humanitarian missions.

Canada is in Afghanistan in the interest of world peace and security. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan has proven itself to be a major danger to world peace and security. That regime must be eliminated. The ONLY way to do that is with soldiers and guns.

If there is a hot issue in Afghanistan it is all about strategy - and the lack thereof. The Americans are marching to their own drummer - in many ways operating at cross-purposes to that of the official NATO mission in Afghanistan. Two hands fighting two different battles for two different goals is not a good strategy and one of the reasons one might be tempted to call Afghanistan a 'quagmire'.

Indeed, given the American games being played in Afghanistan, I'd be tempted to say that Canada ought to pull out of Afghanistan since nothing beneficial is going to come from the US mission there and the US mission there is exerbating the difficulties of the Canadian mission. Unless our allies are on the same side, fighting is a waste of time. At the very least, I'd recommend pulling out of Afghanistan with an agreement to return only if the Americans agree to a common strategy (and support it).

Otherwise, Afghanistan will remain one of the most dangerously unstable places on the planet - only a matter of time before they cause more trouble.

Damned if we do and damned if we don't. Thank you Mister Bush.

[jdobbin]

The Leftist term for all of this is "quagmire". Is it? Should we be defeatist?

IMV, our fight in Afghanistan is worthy but it should be clear what we want. We don't want more regimes harbouring people capable of flying big planes into big buildings. And we should accomplish this goal in the most direct and obvious way possible.

I don't know how we should do this but I don't think sending young guys in heavy gear in heavy vehicles to get blown apart by random bombs accomplishes anything.

If it's a war of attrition or nerves, we lose.

I wonder what the rightist term for the war is called: Victory? Mission accomplished?

The parliamentary committee today said the issue should be debated. It should be. If Canada is to commit troops until 2012, we should be able to decide benchmarks. Otherwise, this is going to be a decades long commitment and our forces will not be available for anything else unless we up the numbers by the thousands. At the moment, we have 2000 there, 2000 that just got back and 2000 that are preparing to go. Any little crisis and we just don't have the guns.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...18?hub=Politics

he House of Commons defence committee says the conflict in Afghanistan will likely go on well past 2009 and Parliament should hold a debate halfway through next year to decide whether to extend Canada's mission in the war-torn country.

The all-party committee's long-awaited reported was tabled on Monday. "If we leave, someone else will have to carry the load," it said. A recent poll found a majority of Canadians wanted to see the army's combat mission end on schedule in February 2009.

The survey by Decima Research, released to The Canadian Press on June 12, found two-thirds of those polled said they would not support an extension.

Only 26 per cent said the military mission should be extended "if that is necessary to complete our goals there."

Moreover, if our allies take a powder, we are left with our butts hanging in the breeze.

[jdobbin]

No, if it's a war of attrition with a 20:1 bodycount, we win. Our mistake is not going in on full auto, and until we bleed a whole lot more, we're not going to do that.

But to approach every tactical or bureaucratic mistake as if it is proof positive of a "quagmire" makes no sense whatsoever.

Well, thanks General for that bit of info. Perhaps you'll give Bush some advice now on how to win in Iraq. Oh wait, he has won. Mission accomplished.

[Mad_Michael]

I can't believe ANYONE would mention the phrase "war of attrition".

WW1 was fought according to that strategy. The Generals deserved to be shot by firing squad for that criminal act.

[ScottSA]

No, if it's a war of attrition with a 20:1 bodycount, we win. Our mistake is not going in on full auto, and until we bleed a whole lot more, we're not going to do that.

But to approach every tactical or bureaucratic mistake as if it is proof positive of a "quagmire" makes no sense whatsoever.

Well, thanks General for that bit of info. Perhaps you'll give Bush some advice now on how to win in Iraq. Oh wait, he has won. Mission accomplished.

Is there a point to this post other than flamebaiting?

[M.Dancer]

I can't believe ANYONE would mention the phrase "war of attrition".

WW1 was fought according to that strategy. The Generals deserved to be shot by firing squad for that criminal act.

regardless, attrition is a fundamental componet of the metrics or war.

[jdobbin]

Is there a point to this post other than flamebaiting?

Was there a point in your comment about needing to bleed more? What does that mean? More soldiers? More deaths? Longer commitment? Indiscriminate bombing?

Let's see what's been happening since Friday. Four NATO soldiers dead, numerous Taliban dead, civilians dead and property destroyed. Areas once considered relatively safe are now back to dangerous. The Karzai government is very fragile and the Tribal chieftains are growing in their power. The poppy market has completely recovered and the economy is basically a narco-military industrial complex.

Al Qaeda operates with impunity in Pakistan and Pakistan and Iran give weapons and support to the Taliban.

Our allies are considering withdrawing and Canadians don't know what the long term objectives are or if they are achievable.

However, you seem to think that if we bleed a little bit more, it will all end in success.

[noahbody]

The Afghanists have to want to change, they have to fight and die for it, not our people. It will not matter how many people are sent in it will continue until they stop it or not as they want.

"In the last three months alone, over 210 police officers have been killed and 330 wounded, according to Afghanistan’s Ministry of Interior (MoI)."

Doesn't this suggest they they do want change and are willing to die for it?

[jdobbin]

"In the last three months alone, over 210 police officers have been killed and 330 wounded, according to Afghanistan’s Ministry of Interior (MoI)."

Doesn't this suggest they they do want change and are willing to die for it?

It might also suggest they are losing the fight.

[M.Dancer]

"In the last three months alone, over 210 police officers have been killed and 330 wounded, according to Afghanistan’s Ministry of Interior (MoI)."

Doesn't this suggest they they do want change and are willing to die for it?

It might also suggest they are losing the fight.

It would except that over the same period, countless taliban are dancing in paradise....

[bush_cheney2004]

Our allies are considering withdrawing and Canadians don't know what the long term objectives are or if they are achievable.

However, you seem to think that if we bleed a little bit more, it will all end in success.

OK...then leave. Take those precious 2500 motivated volunteers and slay windmills in Darfur instead. But please don't start whining when they do their best only to face more mines, car bombs, and IEDs.

So yeah....let's see what the opposition's got.....make the banners....organize the protests....march on Ottawa until Canada's "Vietnam" is over. The Americans managed to do this after 50,000+ dead. Why wait for the additional 49,943?

Declare victory and go home to wonder why Canada was ever there in the first place.

[jdobbin]

It would except that over the same period, countless taliban are dancing in paradise....

There seems to be an endless stream of those and a finite amount of police or army.

[Army Guy]

First, let me get my prejudices out of the way. I agreed with Chretien's decision to participate in NATO's intervention in Afghanistan. I also agreed with Chretien's decision not to part in Bush's coalition to oust Saddam Hussein.

I don't think you'll find many Canadians that will disagree with your above statement. What i do take issue with is the majority of Canadians flip flopping thier opinions of the Afgan mission due to poor government and media coverage of this mission. most Canadians are making judgements with little knowledge of what is happening over there.

First of all, we are not in Afghhanistan to build a new country. If Afghan girls go to school, that will be an affair of Afghans. One of Canada's ambassadors to Kabul said that it would take five generations to bring Afghanistan into the modern world. I think he was optimistic. Afghans are a pragmatic but superstitious and stubborn lot. CIDA is wasting its time (and our money).

If it was only that easy, bomb the crap out of them until they say uncle then leave, does not solve any issues, unless you plan to make this a hobby. Removing a group or government of a nation comes with other responsabilites which includel rebuilding it until it becomes stable.

NATO's goals are not to bring Afganistan into the modern world, but to rebuild it until it is has a stable government able to sustain itself, and to give it the resources until it can do so.

Second, we should not be in Afghanistan as part of some scheme to make Canadians proud or pretend this is another "liberate Holland" moment. We should not spend billions (and I mean billions) on military hardware to make ourselves proud. This isn't 1939 and Harper is not using our money to buy his place at the Table of the Just.

Why are we in Afgan then, if not to liberate the Afgan people to give them a chance at peace,to give them a piece of what Canadians take for granted every day.

Your right it is not 1939, it 2007, and after 20 years or more of this country slashing it's defence dept. It has left our nation with 2 choices disband the military, or spend the bils (and we are not talking what has just been spent, but 40 to 50 bil in additional funds) just to keep our current capabilities.

And when all that is said and done Canada will still not be able to sit at the grown up table, but left in the wings as we always have. I may sound bitter, but thats life, Canadians have decided this is how they want thier military to look. Harper is just trying to replace those things that need fixing yesterday...so he will not be faced with disbanding a dept because it has become to expensive to maintain.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the US military is invincible to any conventional force in the world. But the US (and Canada) do not face now conventional forces.

For the life of me, I do not understand how a young Canadian soldier, killed while driving by a planted bomb, advances anything in anyway. As George Patton said, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Yet, what we are doing is making our young bastards die, supposedly, for our country. And we honour this.

Your right insurgent warfare is a differnet type of warfare, which requires a different force compostion. one currently operating in afgan....but who else do you send to fight these guys. Do we role over ever time someone with an axe to grind decides insurgent warfare is the way to go, because the insurgents side always wins.

Yes many Canadian soldiers have meet thier end by IED, or mine. And yet we still voluteer to go back , why because "we" think it's worth the cost, The average Canadian does'nt have to understand it, they are not the ones that are paying that cost, we the soldiers are.

Soldiers have for some time known that this mission is not a popular one on the home front, and if our nation is going to have any effect in Afgan it will have to be bourne by our soldiers alone...something that has not gone unnoticed by our soldiers...

[Topaz]

I still believe the war in Afghanistan was what the US used to go to Iraq. The Taliban and the Northern Alliance have rules the country and both are corrupt as much as the present government is. If you go to Author Kent's website www.skyreporter.com you will get more info. what going on with the war than you will from the Foreign Affairs. Kent talks to people of the country and let anyone else who has a question to ask it. You will get the idea of how corrupt the present govt is over there and how people in the country want him out, along with the Taiban. There's too much going on behind the scenes of this country and I don't think the Harper govt is aware of it or knows how to react to it, if they knew.

[Alexandra]

The Leftist term for all of this is "quagmire". Is it? Should we be defeatist?

I don't know how we should do this but I don't think sending young guys in heavy gear in heavy vehicles to get blown apart by random bombs accomplishes anything.

If it's a war of attrition or nerves, we lose.

Quite possibly your musings will be answered by the people of your province after the Van Doos have been in-country a month or two:

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/213071

"Now, it's the Van Doos' turn to carry the load

But sending Quebec-based troops to Afghanistan carries extra political risk ........... "

`

[August1991]

No, if it's a war of attrition with a 20:1 bodycount, we win. Our mistake is not going in on full auto, and until we bleed a whole lot more, we're not going to do that.

But to approach every tactical or bureaucratic mistake as if it is proof positive of a "quagmire" makes no sense whatsoever.

Sorry, 20:1 is not good enough. At that rate, we lose. Our casualties must be far below theirs.

Go full auto? No, that won't work. It would be the equivalent of burning down a building because there's a leaky roof.

Scott, I don't think you get my point. Our young soldiers are getting blown up by IEDs placed on the road side. When such young men die this way, we accomplish absolutely nothing. It's as if we took young men out into the ocean and pushed them overboard. And then we said, "See! They died for a good cause! They died for our country!"

Yes August, I agree with you. I too thought we should be there and could make a difference, but sacrificing our young people is not the way to do it. We, as a people, cannot force another country to think our way.

The Afghanists have to want to change, they have to fight and die for it, not our people. It will not matter how many people are sent in it will continue until they stop it or not as they want.

Vietnam is a prime example of what happens when other countries interfere and try to change things. We have only united the whole population against us. It is their country, it is their war and as long as Mr. Harper refuses to listen to Canadians, Canadians will die.

Sorry, Margrace. I won't agree with you.

IMV, we have to be in Afghanistan but I think we should be there differently.

Look, I don't care whether the Afghans want to change or not. This isn't an Oprah Winfrey show. We have to make sure they change into people who don't harbour terrorists. That's it, that's all. Our mission is relatively simple.

You raise the example of Vietnam. I happen to think Vietnam was a war the Americans had to fight. It was one battle in the Cold War and the Americans ultimately won that war. The Americans did better in Vietnam when they fought the conventional NVA. They had more trouble with the Viet Cong.

In short, the stakes in Vietnam were greater than they are now in Afghanistan. But whereas the US succeeded in Vietnam by fighting credibly one battle in a larger war, we now are simply losing for nothing.

OK...then leave. Take those precious 2500 motivated volunteers and slay windmills in Darfur instead. But please don't start whining when they do their best only to face more mines, car bombs, and IEDs.

So yeah....let's see what the opposition's got.....make the banners....organize the protests....march on Ottawa until Canada's "Vietnam" is over. The Americans managed to do this after 50,000+ dead. Why wait for the additional 49,943?

Declare victory and go home to wonder why Canada was ever there in the first place.

Bush/Cheney, I am not questioning the presence of our troops in Afghanistan, I am questioning what they are doing there.

[bush_cheney2004]

Bush/Cheney, I am not questioning the presence of our troops in Afghanistan, I am questioning what they are doing there.

I'm sure you know what they are doing there...to engage and kill the enemy, provide security, facilitate governance, de-mining operations, construction PRTs, police training....even micro-finance banking. Clearly their mission is supported by a majority of Canadian Forces, many of whom have served multiple tours.

Army Guy explained why the risks and rewards are embraced as part of the job description.

[August1991]

NATO's goals are not to bring Afganistan into the modern world, but to rebuild it until it is has a stable government able to sustain itself, and to give it the resources until it can do so.

...

Why are we in Afgan then, if not to liberate the Afgan people to give them a chance at peace,to give them a piece of what Canadians take for granted every day.

Frankly, my experience with Afghans tells me that you'll never accomplish any of that. These people make Chechens or Dagestanis seem civilized.

I suspect that neither Karzai nor the Taliban are representative of Afghans. So, who can represent Afghanistan? Who cares, as long as they don't harbour people like al-Qaeda.

Your right insurgent warfare is a differnet type of warfare, which requires a different force compostion. one currently operating in afgan....but who else do you send to fight these guys. Do we role over ever time someone with an axe to grind decides insurgent warfare is the way to go, because the insurgents side always wins.

Yes many Canadian soldiers have meet thier end by IED, or mine. And yet we still voluteer to go back , why because "we" think it's worth the cost, The average Canadian does'nt have to understand it, they are not the ones that are paying that cost, we the soldiers are.

These are the key questions. And I fear that your answers are like the RCMP in 1984 saying that they have air security under control, or saying in 1986 that they have the Air India investigation under control. Well, the RCMP didn't have any of this under control.

Someone in DND better start thinking outside the box fast because, as I have said, getting blown up by an IED accomplishes nothing.

This matters because if you bungle in Afghanistan, it is my children and grandchildren who will pay the consequences.

Soldiers have for some time known that this mission is not a popular one on the home front, and if our nation is going to have any effect in Afgan it will have to be bourne by our soldiers alone...something that has not gone unnoticed by our soldiers...

Ignore the popularity issue. If you guys are in it for the glory, you're probably in the wrong line of work.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

I am in complete agreement with you on most every point. Some problems though...

Sorry, 20:1 is not good enough. At that rate, we lose. Our casualties must be far below theirs.

Indeed, Gwynne Dyer pointed out (In his book "Future: Tense") that a 20-1, even 40 or 50-1 kill ratio is not to be unexpected given the abilities of a modern superpower versus tribal warriors. However, history has shown that the kill ratio itself doesn't mean squat.

History has also shown that it is well nigh impossible to govern a country from afar without resorting to the most brutal and direct methods that today would be unthinkable. Even then, it still didn't work for any length of time (recently). The Nazis tortured and publicly hanged partisans in the Balkans (and elsewhere), destroyed whole towns, and still the partisans managed to be very effective.