Canada in Afghanistan: Are we doing this right?

[Army Guy]

Don't sell the home front short, if we had the 100 % support of the people this thing would already be in the bag...more troops, more funding, more aid....a solid unity front at home the taliban would be setting up shop in Pakistan , and would be there problem...not ours.

[jdobbin]

Don't sell the home front short, if we had the 100 % support of the people this thing would already be in the bag...more troops, more funding, more aid....a solid unity front at home the taliban would be setting up shop in Pakistan , and would be there problem...not ours.

100% from Canadians doesn't change the fact that Afghan police are corrupt and incompetent. It doesn't change that the Taliban get support from Pakistan and possibly Iran. It doesn't change the fact our allies offer inconsistent help. It doesn't change the fact that Karzai has very little control outside of Kabul.

If 100% support was key to victory, it would have helped Germany and Japan win World War II.

Sometimes it is more than just support at home that is responsible for victory or for defeat.

[Mad_Michael]

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.

Do you have an alternative policy proposal rather than just taking pot shots at the existing one?

[August1991]

These random attacks are mainly for the media, not to win on the battle field, but to change the hearts and minds at home...want to stop thier effectivness stop the media from covering them. stop giving them the attention the taliban crave and need.

The Afgan operation won't be lost on the battle field but on the home front. Without the support of home we can accomplish nothing in Afgan.

Look, if the media didn't report these IED attacks, their effect would be the same.

First of all, I don't like this foisting of blame on to the people in Canada. If you guys aren't getting this right, that's not our fault.

Second, I don't buy this argument that the Taiban are doing this to affect Canadian public opinion. The Taliban is doing this to kill you guys.

NATO could throw the media out of Afghanistan and somehow hush up these IED deaths and the effect would be exactly the same as now. The Taliban would continue to plant IEDs and you guys would continue to get killed.

And you don't win wars by getting blown up while driving on a road.

I hope that some smart military people are thinking outside the box right now. We have to fight this war differently.

What ever the enemy can use to inflict cas they will use, NATO has already proven that they can not be beaten on the conventional battle field, the taliban does not have the numbers to fight us one on one.

That's obvious. No one can beat the US military in a conventional battle. So, not surprisingly, you are not going to face such opponents.

In this thread, I fear that I am arguing with an 18th century Prussian infantryman.

In many ways you are, not because it is the way the soldiers want to fight, but rather we are fighting this War, the how, and when, and our code of conduct in which the west will tolerate. Insurgent warfare gives most of the advantages to the bad guys, in many ways, NO rules, No conventions, and thier victory conditions are much more easily defined, and achieved.

...

Soviets are not held back by conventions and rules as we are. but that does not mean that the afganis people are not worth giving an oportunity for peace to.

Many people have stated it is impossable to achieve victory, and yet the taliban manged to gain control of most of the country, proving that it is possiable, conditions are right for peace , the people are begging for it, we are not fighting the type of battles, nor are we using the same tactics, as past conquors have tried and failed, today we are fighting with the people to give them something they want peace...

I think we are on the right path, it's not the fast track but we will get there.

Army Guy, on one hand you say that you are constrained by NATO's rules of engagement (and this prevents you from achieving quick victory). OTOH, you state that the Soviets were brutal and had loose rules and yet they failed too.

You note that the Taliban did achieve victory. That's an interesting observation.

[Army Guy]

Look, if the media didn't report these IED attacks, their effect would be the same.

Would they, you stated yourself getting killed in a fire fight was acceptable to you something you could understand. If the media reported another soldier was killed in combat in Afgan you would not be going thru this thought process, or claiming it a wateful death...he died for nothing..

When in fact the result is the same wether you die from a bullet or IED dead is dead... War is wasteful and needless most of the time, that does not mean that soldier was not carryout his duties. boots on the ground is what you said was needed right....

First of all, I don't like this foisting of blame on to the people in Canada. If you guys aren't getting this right, that's not our fault.

Second, I don't buy this argument that the Taiban are doing this to affect Canadian public opinion. The Taliban is doing this to kill you guys.

August, your one of the most intelligent people on this board (in my opinion), what i'm giving you is a soldiers piont of veiw and how it looks like from our side of the fence...We've been given a job, and expected to carry out that job in true Canadian fashion...no excuses for failure, just get that job done...

But we are also expected to get that job done without the majority of support from our support struture...

waging war is a team sport, the military fight, and the home front support, it's simple ...but thats not what is happening now is it...with out the people's support at home there will be no additional troops to help fight, there will be no additional funding, there will be no increase in aid, the list go's on and on.....all tools that we require to win this fight...

So to the soldier over thier right now, who's only link to home is the media, here is what we get...

- we are not accomplishing anything...

- this war can not be won...

-Inquiry into possiable mistreatment of POW's.

-inquiry into handing over POW's to tortured.

- calls from most polictical parties to bring home the troops, by 2009.

- This is the wrong mission, WE want out NOW...

- bring an end to the bombing.

- NATO troops killing to many civ's etc etc..

approx 1/3 of all the stories run, actually have anything good to say about the mission, why is that only a 1/3 of the media outlets mange to run postive stories about the mission. could it be they don't sell as well.

You've already been effected by public opinion and the taliban efforts to undermine that. they know for certain they can not defeat us on the battle field....they do know that they can influence the public, our public and they will preasure our government into leaving...

god forbid but what if another 6 troops die tommorrow, and the next day...would we be waiting until 2009 to come home or do you believe we would be packing up tommorow....and if the public has that much control why would it be unreasonable for the taliban to try to influence that...And who makes up that public opinion "Canadian citizens do", you and me...

Army Guy, on one hand you say that you are constrained by NATO's rules of engagement (and this prevents you from achieving quick victory). OTOH, you state that the Soviets were brutal and had loose rules and yet they failed too.

The soviet union went beyond brutal, wiping out entire villages and towns men, women and children suspected of assisting the insurgents, they even designed an anti pers mine to look like a toy so it would be pickup by children...

And on our side, remember that up roar cause by the accusation of one professor, who accused Canadian soldiers of mistreating POW's while in there care although proven false in the end, the damage was done, new POW handling measures were put out, POW's had to be handed over in pristine condition, better than when they were captured...to the piont nobody wants to handle a POW any more, in case your charged or accused of something...Nobody is avocating kicking the crap out of them, or abusing them but we are at war, and POW's are handling roughly (in comparison to say common criminals in Canada) that is a fact of war.

[Argus]

These random attacks are mainly for the media, not to win on the battle field, but to change the hearts and minds at home...want to stop thier effectivness stop the media from covering them. stop giving them the attention the taliban crave and need.

The Afgan operation won't be lost on the battle field but on the home front. Without the support of home we can accomplish nothing in Afgan.

Look, if the media didn't report these IED attacks, their effect would be the same.

I disagree. The purpose of the IEDs is to kill Canadians. Sure, the affect would be the same, but to what purpose? Killing a few score Canadians over the course of several years is nothing, really. We lose thousands of young people to traffic accidents every year. What difference does it make to Canada as an entity of we lose a few dozen in Afghanistan? That isn't going to help the Taliban. That isn't going to defeat the Canadian mission or push us off.

Except -- that the media pick up each casualty and trumpet it with the voice of doom, purposefully playing up the loss to family, the misery of friends, the "tragedy" of a great young person who lost his life. Immediately followed by commentators who usually say it's all a waste of time and we have no hope of accomplishing anything. On CTV, after reporting the "tragedy" and noting how one trooper had only been able to hold his baby daughter in his arms for four days before leaving (playing up the tragedy angle) they cut to an interview with two commentators - Audrey McLaughlin and Denis Codere. This is purposeful propaganda to convince Canadians that we need to leave Afghanistan, and it couldn't have been written better if the Taliban themselves were behind the cameras.

Ultimately that is how the Taliban can win, with the aid of the media and venal, self-serving politicians.

First of all, I don't like this foisting of blame on to the people in Canada. If you guys aren't getting this right, that's not our fault.

Who says they're not getting it right? Denis Codere and Audrey McLaughlin, those two brilliant military tacticians? Oh, because they've taken a few dozen casualties? Well hell, that must mean they're doing it wrong! I mean, Patton never took any casualties, right!?

Second, I don't buy this argument that the Taiban are doing this to affect Canadian public opinion. The Taliban is doing this to kill you guys.

Perhaps, but that is a pointless exercise that would serve them no purpose and aid them not at all without the help of the Canadian media and soft-headed, bleeding heart, hand-wringing Canadians like you.

[August1991]

I disagree. The purpose of the IEDs is to kill Canadians. Sure, the affect would be the same, but to what purpose? Killing a few score Canadians over the course of several years is nothing, really. We lose thousands of young people to traffic accidents every year. What difference does it make to Canada as an entity of we lose a few dozen in Afghanistan? That isn't going to help the Taliban. That isn't going to defeat the Canadian mission or push us off.

Except -- that the media pick up each casualty and trumpet it with the voice of doom, purposefully playing up the loss to family, the misery of friends, the "tragedy" of a great young person who lost his life. Immediately followed by commentators who usually say it's all a waste of time and we have no hope of accomplishing anything.

The Soviets had complete control over their internal media and there were no reports of casualties. Families were quietly told of a son's death, if they were told at all. When injured soldiers returned to Russia, no one said anything about it.

The Soviets nevertheless gave up and pulled out.

The Taliban (mujahideen) used the same tactics against the Soviets that they are using against us. And for the same reason. They will fight this war for as long as it takes. They will kill and maim as many of our people as they can. They don't care about Canadian media.

I think that when the Canadian military bemoans how the media portrays these deaths, the military is just picking on a whipping boy to express its own frustration.

First of all, I don't like this foisting of blame on to the people in Canada. If you guys aren't getting this right, that's not our fault.

Who says they're not getting it right? Denis Codere and Audrey McLaughlin, those two brilliant military tacticians? Oh, because they've taken a few dozen casualties? Well hell, that must mean they're doing it wrong! I mean, Patton never took any casualties, right!?

I'm far from a military expert but it just seems to me that you don't win a war by having soldiers get randomly blown up. Patton of all people understood that you don't win wars by getting killed.

When air crews were lost over Europe in WWII, they were inflicting harm on the enemy.

When our guys get blown up, they were just driving down a road. What does that accomplish?

Perhaps, but that is a pointless exercise that would serve them no purpose and aid them not at all without the help of the Canadian media and soft-headed, bleeding heart, hand-wringing Canadians like you.

Argus, I have made it plain above that I support our mission in Afghanistan. We must prevent at all costs a return of a regime like the Taliban.

My question concerns whether our military is going about this the right way. I noted above that they seem like Prussian infantrymen confronted with American minutemen.

We have to go about this differently.

Do you have an alternative policy proposal rather than just taking pot shots at the existing one?

Unfortunately, I don't - but then that's not my area of expertise.

This is a tricky war in Afghanistan, and it's only one part of a larger conflict.

All things considered though, I think we in the liberal West faced down greater perils in Nazism and Soviet communism. We'll win this one too.

[August1991]

When in fact the result is the same wether you die from a bullet or IED dead is dead... War is wasteful and needless most of the time, that does not mean that soldier was not carryout his duties. boots on the ground is what you said was needed right....

You'll get no argument from me that war is wasteful. The whole point of a military is to avoid war. But sometimes you have to fight.

For a soldier (or anyone), the only question about dying is how painless it is. But as Churchill said in WWII, if the Germans ever invade, each Englishman will take a German or two with him before he dies.

If I knew that six Taliban soldiers died at the same time our guys were lost, I'd feel better about the tactics you've chosen.

So, there is a difference whether you die by IED or bullet. If you die by bullet, a buddy might get the guy who fired the bullet. [i'm sorry to sound so crude about this.]

And on our side, remember that up roar cause by the accusation of one professor, who accused Canadian soldiers of mistreating POW's while in there care although proven false in the end, the damage was done, new POW handling measures were put out, POW's had to be handed over in pristine condition, better than when they were captured...to the piont nobody wants to handle a POW any more, in case your charged or accused of something...Nobody is avocating kicking the crap out of them, or abusing them but we are at war, and POW's are handling roughly (in comparison to say common criminals in Canada) that is a fact of war.

On this point, you have my complete agreement.

I was appalled by this media discussion in Canada. It's a war. What nonsense is this how we treat POWs. The absurdity was to insist that we control how the Afghans deal with people we hand over to them. These guys plant roadside bombs and if we catch them, we're supposed to ensure that their toilet paper is soft enough? There may be some righteous NDP types but they'll use any method to criticise.

I'm inclined to think that my sense on our treatment of POWs is closer to general public opinion. Some higher military types should just tell the politicians to ignore this. If you capture any enemy, you shouldn't have to worry about what happens afterwards.

[Peter F]

I'm inclined to think that my sense on our treatment of POWs is closer to general public opinion. Some higher military types should just tell the politicians to ignore this. If you capture any enemy, you shouldn't have to worry about what happens afterwards.

I have no experience in the matter but from my understanding surrender in battle is a very iffy thing at the best of times and as army guy says 'rough' treatment will be inevitable.

However, a surrendering enemy who is not in any immediate danger, is also a very common thing, and I assumed something the enemy should be encouraged to do.

This would imply that an enemy has the belief that to surrender early is a really good idea because treatment in the camp would be no worse than what the fellow is putting up with now with the added benefit of living out the war.

Thus german surrender rates skyrocketed in the late months of both world wars - on the western fronts anyways.

So I would think that it would be in the CAF's best interest to ensure that prisoners are indeed treated to the minimum standards of the Geneva conventions - be Talibani's legal combatants or not. Turning them over to others and then, as August 1991 suggests, forgetting about them would, I think, be detrimental.

In restrospect, I agree that the press' treatment of the prisoner thing a few months back was appalling.

Wether the charges were true or not the press should never have reported such a counterproductive story and it should never have been argued about in public.

I sincerely hope that our soldiers would never refuse to take a prisoner due to a possible black mark on thier service record. To avoid unreasonable risk to thier lives or the operation at hand is understandable...but to avoid maybe getting a black mark on thier service record is a little too cold-blooded.

Unless 'not taking prisoners' doesn't mean what I think it means.

[Argus]

Except -- that the media pick up each casualty and trumpet it with the voice of doom, purposefully playing up the loss to family, the misery of friends, the "tragedy" of a great young person who lost his life. Immediately followed by commentators who usually say it's all a waste of time and we have no hope of accomplishing anything.

The Soviets had complete control over their internal media and there were no reports of casualties. Families were quietly told of a son's death, if they were told at all. When injured soldiers returned to Russia, no one said anything about it.

The Soviets nevertheless gave up and pulled out

You're simply being silly. The Soviets lost almost 15,000 men killed. We've lost what - 66? I think all NATO allies together have only lost a couple of hundred. The situations are simply not comparable.

I think that when the Canadian military bemoans how the media portrays these deaths, the military is just picking on a whipping boy to express its own frustration.

The military is not frustrated at how the fighting is going on the ground in Afghanistan. If it's frustrated, it's at the home front, at the defeatism and cowardice of Canadian politicians and media, and how that defeatism has infected the public causing them to lose support for the mission.

First of all, I don't like this foisting of blame on to the people in Canada. If you guys aren't getting this right, that's not our fault.

Who says they're not getting it right? Denis Codere and Audrey McLaughlin, those two brilliant military tacticians? Oh, because they've taken a few dozen casualties? Well hell, that must mean they're doing it wrong! I mean, Patton never took any casualties, right!?

I'm far from a military expert but it just seems to me that you don't win a war by having soldiers get randomly blown up. Patton of all people understood that you don't win wars by getting killed.

What Patton understood was that in war soldiers die, and you cannot take an objective without soldiers dying. Patton's casualties were generally higher than other commanders because he was aggressive in taking his objectives regardless of the cost. The idea that Patton would shrink away from a battle because he'd taken a few casualties is absurd to the point of open laughter.

When air crews were lost over Europe in WWII, they were inflicting harm on the enemy.

When our guys get blown up, they were just driving down a road. What does that accomplish?

Air crews died because of mechanical failure. What did that accomplish? People die in training accidents, through friendly fire, through accidents, and through enemy action. Not every soldier dies heroically after killing ten of the enemy.

[Rue]

Keepitsimple:

thanks, i don't claim to have all the answers, or is my insight the end all to be all, just want to give some perspective from a soldiers piont of view, something that i think is missing in our media feed country.

I appreciate your comments too and have learned a lot from them.

[Army Guy]

For a soldier (or anyone), the only question about dying is how painless it is. But as Churchill said in WWII, if the Germans ever invade, each Englishman will take a German or two with him before he dies.

Every thing in war is designed to kill, maim, and destroy something, on todays battle field thier are thousands of ways to die, IED's is just one of them...no differnent than say an arty barrage, rocket attack, or air strike or mine, when these wpns are deployed there is no "fighting back" no taking a few down with you..And while that is fustrating not to be able to reach out and kill something to avenge your death. It does not make that death any less important or wasteful than the guy that died charging a machine gun postion...

Just our being here is a deterant to tha taliban, and if they are concentrating thier efforts on us and leaving the population alone then we have suceeded in doing some good.

As for it being painless, i've heard that alot, "if i'm going to die, let it be a bullet in the head"...or let it be quick...but it rarely happens that way..I've given death some serious thought, and while speaking to others in my section or plt i've manged to put up the tough army guy act on, and told them "That shit does'nt happen in my section" (Like i had any control over it) but it does and did happen...Dying is painful, for both sides the dead and the living... is it to be feared, to a certain degree, Can it be avoided, not in combat...

[weaponeer]

Monsters In The Dark

I know they are out there, I will not be ignorant anymore;

pulling the blanket over my head will not keep them from coming ashore;

Instead I choose to confront them as afraid as I am because if I don't stop the monsters our children can never be free.

By Master Corporal Jeffrey Walsh

Killed 9 Aug 2006, Kandahar Afghanistan

I have stated it many times on here before, and I will state it again, if you are not here, not involved in operations you cannot know what is really going on. There are many intelligent people on this forum, knowledgeable and well intentioned, but you cannot know what is really going on, your not here. The media is a business, they are here to make $$. They report stories from their own viewpoints and agendas. The media/bloggers are not involved in the panning of operations both big and small. They only see about 20% of what is going on, the rest is speculation. Speculation that becomes facts somehow.

As soldiers/airmen over here we would love to tell everyone what is really happening but we cannot. We have rules to follow, and many things we'd love to share are classified.

As for historical comparisons, the Russians used brutal tactics here in Afghanistan. History forgets that the Soviet army destroyed the mujahadeen, reduced it to an annoyance with their brutal tactics. The mujahadeen begged the US for help against the Russians, and the CIA was sent over to assist them. The US gave them Stinger missiles, intel, advanced training etc....This was, IMHO, payback for what the Russians did to the US in Vietnam by aiding the VC/NVA.

As for the whole bombing German comparison, RAF Bomber Command had very little effect on German industry, we lost thousands on aircrew for no gain. InWW2 and other wars many a battle has been fought for no real reason, for no real gain, even if the battle was a victory. Ex Passandale, The Somme etc...

As for our allies, they will not fight. Most of them did not even put up a real fight when the Nazis invaded their countries, they surrendered and left the heavy lifting to Australia, Canada, UK and USA. There's nothing new here. If they will not fight to defend their own countries, we cannot expect them to fight for someone else's home.

I can safely say we are making progress, all be it slowly. They people want us here to help, still wave when we drive by and come out to greet us. Car bombs and IEDS are a dangerous tactic for the talibs as well. For every bomb that kills local civilians, the talibs support drops.

Despite the progress, Pakistan is still a major problem. Unless NATO and the USA really puts the screws to them it will continue to be a difficult grind.

[Army Guy]

Peter F:

I have no experience in the matter but from my understanding surrender in battle is a very iffy thing at the best of times and as army guy says 'rough' treatment will be inevitable.

However, a surrendering enemy who is not in any immediate danger, is also a very common thing, and I assumed something the enemy should be encouraged to do.

This would imply that an enemy has the belief that to surrender early is a really good idea because treatment in the camp would be no worse than what the fellow is putting up with now with the added benefit of living out the war.

Thus german surrender rates skyrocketed in the late months of both world wars - on the western fronts anyways.

One also has to remember that the prime concern when taking a POW is the safety of your men, and taking POW's is done with speed and brute force to avoid them changing thier minds, and not giving them a chance to think.

One also has to keep in mind we are not dealing with regular german soldiers, but fanical religious types, who would be extremily happy to go to the promised land, and take a few infidels with them...Operation mudusa proved that they were willing to die in place...those few POW's we did take were not fanical but rather liked life here on the planet..those are few and far between.

As for thier treatment once in our control is second to none, they are treated well above what the convention provides for.

So I would think that it would be in the CAF's best interest to ensure that prisoners are indeed treated to the minimum standards of the Geneva conventions - be Talibani's legal combatants or not. Turning them over to others and then, as August 1991 suggests, forgetting about them would, I think, be detrimental.

Every Canadian soldier is well aware of what the convention states in regards to Whats expected of them according to the convention...but i don't think there would be to many sheding any tears over what the Afganis did to them...I've seen first hand the talibans handy work when they deal with the Afganis population so i understand what motivates the Afgan police to return the favour so to speak.

Although it is not right, and would not knowily take part in those activities, i understand why they happen...