Afghanistan: Why we should be there (or not), how to conduct the mission (or not) & when to leave

[The Bread Guy]

My guess is our withdrawal will be very nearly 100% - there may be a few civilians and some military observers or LOs in Kabul, nothing more would be my guess.

I'll bet a loonie this way - interestingly enough, it's also what anonymous government sources are telling La Presse (Google translation of article here):

.... According to information obtained by La Presse, the date of withdrawal of Canadian troops is an irrevocable decision for the Prime Minister. In fact, Harper is currently discussing with the Liberals Michael Ignatieff last few days on Canada's intentions in Afghanistan once the military mission is complete.  And he intends to attach all the strings that option, with the support of the Liberals, before going to the NATO summit that will prioritize the future of the mission in Afghanistan.  Mr. Harper therefore formally not tell his counterparts from member countries of the Alliance military in Lisbon ....

 

[The Bread Guy]

Changes by the hour - this from the Canadian Press:

Canada is considering NATO and allied requests to keep troops in Afghanistan past 2011 to conduct non-combat training missions, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Sunday.

MacKay said the government would likely make a decision in the coming weeks in the run-up to the Nov. 18 NATO leaders’ summit in Portugal.

MacKay stressed that any such mission would take place out of Kandahar province, where fighting is fiercest and would be “behind the wire” – military parlance for non-combat mission.

NATO has identified a shortfall of about 900 troops to conduct training and Canada is mindful of those requests, the minister said ....

Interesting to see how the circle gets squared with the La Presse allegations.

 

[PuckChaser]

Apparently the Liberals are pushing hard for us to be there past 2011 in a "non-combat" role. Weren't they pushing for a complete and total withdrawl just a little while ago?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Apparently the Liberals are pushing hard for us to be there past 2011 in a "non-combat" role. Weren't they pushing for a complete and total withdrawl just a little while ago?

IIRC, they changed their tune a bit after a group of them visited AFG this past summer as part of a parliamentary committee visit.

 

[OldSolduer]

CTV news tonight had the same story - move to Kabul, behind the wire trg etc.

 

[Container]

Im completely ignorant of the ramifications of this new news today about hundreds of non-combat trainers in the coming years.

How does security for those forces work? Will "combat types" be required for base security etc?

Excuse me if its a dumb question.

 

[HavokFour]

Staying past 2011 is more or less political suicide. It's almost as if the Liberals don't want to be put back in power.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Container: Most would likely be attached to the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan in Kabul, a non-combat establishment, read all about it:
http://www.ntm-a.com/

Meanwhile, a very useful round-up from Norman Spector:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/spector-vision/canadian-troops-in-afghanistan-liberals-hold-the-key/article1789425/

    …
    Though the PMO leaks presented this new training mission as an option being considered, the Defense Editor of the Times of London, Michael Evans, was already reporting it on Monday as a fait accompli (behind the paper’s pay-wall): “At the NATO summit on November 19 alliance countries may have to agree to retain some troops for a training role right up to 2014. The Netherlands has already withdrawn its troops but there will be pressure on the Dutch to send trainers. Canada, whose combat troops are to leave next year, will also be expected to commit to the training mission.”

    Over at the Washington Post, on the other hand, no decision has yet been taken but the pressure on Canada was said to be intense:

    “The United States, France and Britain have said to the Canadians ‘Don’t waste your experience’ in Afghanistan” by leaving before the mission is completed, said the European official, one of several who discussed the private meetings on condition of anonymity.

    “If the Canadians agree,” he said, “maybe the Dutch will come back with trainers.” ..[more on the Dutch here
http://unambig.com/afstan-talkin-to-the-talibsdutch-military-return/ ]

    Also on Monday, according to a report behind the pay-wall of the Wall Street Journal, NATO will release a report showing that “Significant progress has been made in building up the Afghan security forces, but continuing attrition among police officers and a dearth of midlevel military leaders pose major challenges … Enthusiasm within NATO for long-term mentoring of Afghan security forces appears to be eroding, and military leaders hope to persuade alliance leaders to continue their training commitment….According to the report, NATO needs 900 more trainers to build up such specialized training.”

    Interestingly, the Wall Street Journal’s sister publication, the Times of London, is also reporting this behind its pay-wall:

    The U.S. commander in Afghanistan has drawn up a colour-coded timetable to hand back control to local security forces, The Times has learnt.

    A handful of areas in Afghanistan have been stamped “green”, signalling that they have been earmarked for a handover in the spring. The plan, which was drawn up by General David Petraeus, is to be presented to NATO leaders at the summit of alliance leaders in Lisbon on November 19.

    The colours range from green to grey, the latter being the most problematic, indicating that the handover is more than two years away. Provinces such as Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan in the south, and Kunar in the east, fall into this category. … The plan, which is expected to be given full support at the summit, will allow President Obama to fulfil his pledge to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan from July next year.

    Most of the U.S. combat troops are in areas where there is continuous confrontation with the Taleban and other insurgents. None of the U.S. Marines in Helmand will be going home next July. They, and the British troops in Helmand, expect to be part of the campaign for another three or four years.

    In today’s National Post, Senator Pamela Wallin writes:

    The man who has twice commanded Canadian troops in Afghanistan says the war is “winnable.” He should know – he’s recently back from the heat of combat where he saw the combined effect of the NATO-U. S. troop surge and a more able Afghan Army. … General Vance’s optimism echoes that of Canada’s current commander on the ground in Afghanistan, Brigadier-General Dean Milner, and General David Petraeus, the top NATO commander there, who has said that operations are proceeding “more rapidly than was anticipated.” The Canadian Forces’ unique combination of warrior and humanitarian skills is also bringing – and keeping – Afghans onside. General Vance says that as a population becomes hopeful, it has a “galvanizing effect.”

    In Washington, however, the New York Times reports considerable skepticism and an “intense debate” concerning reports by the military of progress in Afghanistan:

  In Kandahar, NATO officials say that American and Afghan forces continue to rout the Taliban. In new statistics offered by American commanders in Kabul, Special Operations units have killed 339 midlevel Taliban commanders and 949 of the group’s foot soldiers in the past three months alone. At the Pentagon, the draft of a war assessment to be submitted to Congress this month cites a shift in momentum in some areas of the country away from the insurgency.

    But as a new White House review of President Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan gets under way, the rosy signs have opened an intense debate at the Defense Department, the White House, the State Department and the intelligence agencies over what they really mean…

And John Ivison points out the Danes have been pressing us, with some considerable reason:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/08/john-ivison-ottawa-under-pressure-to-remain-in-afghanistan/#more-17325

    …
    The apparent change of heart by the Harper government came after Gitte Lillelund Bech, the Danish Defence Minister, visited Ottawa last week and met with Mr. MacKay…

    Ms. Bech said she believed that Canada will commit to keeping troops in Afghanistan. “My impression from meeting him [MacKay], is that he agrees we share the same values and are fighting to eliminate safe havens for terrorism. The goals haven’t changed but I fully understand you have to have a majority in Parliament supporting what you’re doing.”

    The Danes have suffered 38 casualties in Afghanistan — more, as a proportion of the country’s population, than any other contributor to ISAF [emphasis added, more here
http://unambig.com/afstan-one-consequence-of-getting-outdanes-notices/ ].
Yet there is no debate in Denmark about pulling troops out of the country, ahead of the 2014 deadline envisaged by the Kabul Conference.

    Ms. Bech said that her government has already committed to training police officers and the military after that date.

    “We will be there [Afghanistan] until the end,” she said.

Have you seen one blinking thing about the Danes and their casualties (they are fighting with the Brits in Helmand) in our self-obsessed major media? No wonder most Canadian effectively know nothing about the war other than dead Canadian soldiers, ramp ceremonies, and the Highway of Heroes.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[dapaterson]

Im completely ignorant of the ramifications of this new news today about hundreds of non-combat trainers in the coming years.

How does security for those forces work? Will "combat types" be required for base security etc?

Excuse me if its a dumb question.

Not a dumb question at all.  If we are resident on someone else's base, they will provide base security.  However, if we are out and about, generally we'd be responsibile for our own security.  I suspect (though have nt see or read anywhere) that if we remain in A'stan in the number suggested (600 or so) we'd see a breakdown more or less like this:

Command element: 40
Support element: 80
Force protection: 120
Trainers etc: 360

Note that this is a very quick and dirty off-the-top-of-my-head guesstimate; depending on arrangements it could look radically different.

 

[Journeyman]

Yes, the Danes have taken a statistically-significant percentage of casualties. Not to denigrate their sacrifices at all, but when you have only two infantry companies and a tank troop in location, 38 soldiers can be seen as significant. As a rough estimate (although presented as gospel at http://icasualties.org/oef/), the Americans lose that many monthly. Are either of those countries' statistics relevant to our foreign policy? No.
Well, no more valid than France lecturing us on not wasting our Afghan experience.  :

As for the "colour-coded timetable to hand back control to local security forces," I hope they've taken the Taliban's crayons away -- I'd hate to see some staff officer's powerpoint get scribbled on because he never learned that "the enemy also gets a vote."

 

[vonGarvin]

Command element: 40 360
Support element: 80 120
Force protection: 12080
Trainers etc: 360 40

dapaterson:
Your estimate was based on facts not relevant to the mission (eg: providing actual training, providing sufficient logistical and administration support, etc).  You forgot stuff like staff bloat, HLTA plan and "Everybody wants in!"-ism.  So, I have adjusted your numbers accordingly 

;D

 

[dapaterson]

dapaterson:
Your estimate was based on facts not relevant to the mission (eg: providing actual training, providing sufficient logistical and administration support, etc).  You forgot stuff like staff bloat, HLTA plan and "Everybody wants in!"-ism.  So, I have adjusted your numbers accordingly 

;D

I believe your revised estimate did not adeqautely consider the multi-national, whole of government requirements to ensure appropriate levels of CF representation in theatre.  Specifically, you have overstated the force protection and training requirements by a factor of 10; those PY savings can be re-directed into the Theatre Command Element to supervise the NCE.  As an added bonus, it abbreviates to TSE, which is a known contaminant that has as effects "beginning with headache, dizziness, and confusion".

 

[jollyjacktar]

This is recent.  Shared with the usual provisions...

Extended Afghan mission to include 1,000 troops
Last Updated: Monday, November 8, 2010 | 2:51 PM ET
CBC News
Up to 1,000 Canadian troops will be stationed in Kabul as part of a plan to extend the country's non-combat mission in Afghanistan after 2011, CBC News has learned. (Nikola Solic/Reuters)Canada will keep up to 1,000 troops in Kabul as part of a plan to extend the country's non-combat mission in Afghanistan after 2011, CBC News has learned.

Up to 750 trainers and at least 200 support staff would work outside of the combat zone at a training academy or large training facility for Afghan soldiers and police officers, the CBC's James Cudmore reports. They would remain in Afghanistan until no later than 2014.

This is the first time specific numbers related to the proposed mission extension have been made public.  On Sunday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the government "is contemplating" transitioning from a combat role to a non-combat, training role but did not offer specific numbers.

And on Monday afternoon, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said he did not know how many troops the Conservatives were planning on keeping deployed there.  Canada's combat mission, which includes 3,000 troops, is due to expire in July 2011.  Allies, including the United States, have pressured Canada to remain.

"This is … not necessarily the most pleasing proposal for our allies," Cudmore reported, citing sources. "There was intense pressure from other allied nations, in NATO in particular, to see Canada extend its combat mission.  "I'm told that [Prime Minister Stephen Harper] has stuck to his guns on this one. If there is to be a future mission, it will be focused on training, not combat. No combat at all."


http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/08/afghanistan-extension-reaction.html

 

[MarkOttawa]

I just hope the story, which looks to me more like a true leak than a government trial balloon, does not cause the prime minister to re-think the numbers, which certainly will get a lot a criticism: e.g., they will make it harder to take a significant part in those blessed UN peacekeeping missions.
http://unambig.com/why-the-globe-and-mail-is-not-a-newspaper-part-2-congo-section/

But our allies will I think be especially pleased; and the Dutch may get serious encouragement to come  back to Afstan in a similar role.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CombatDoc]

IIRC, they changed their tune a bit after a group of them visited AFG this past summer as part of a parliamentary committee visit.

Interesting that the they had 8 years to educate themselves, and only took advantage of it at literally the last minute after we announced our complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.  If the news that we are going to put up to 1000 troops in Kabul in a training role is correct, then it will be interesting to see how the Roto 11 folks decide what get packed for Canada and what doesn't leave the country.  There are sure to be a bunch of staff officers with even greyer hair!

 

[GAP]

are the 777's coming out or are they going to train the Afghans on them also..?

(I have a son who's praying for a chance to go over)  ;D

 

[vonGarvin]

I believe your revised estimate did not adeqautely consider the multi-national, whole of government requirements to ensure appropriate levels of CF representation in theatre.  Specifically, you have overstated the force protection and training requirements by a factor of 10; those PY savings can be re-directed into the Theatre Command Element to supervise the NCE.  As an added bonus, it abbreviates to TSE, which is a known contaminant that has as effects "beginning with headache, dizziness, and confusion".

:rofl:

 

[Edward Campbell]

The pressure from a couple of countries - only a couple really matter to us - must be intense because I'm sure this (staying, in any military role) will be a politically costly decision. Canadians are tired of the Afghanistan mission; wrapping a rotting fish in fresh paper doesn't make it smell any sweeter.

 

[GAP]

There's a plus here....

The Libs and even the NDP, as late as last summer, were decrying about the potential total absence of the CF in Afghanistan, rather than do a training mission after 2011.....I would like to see them try to worm their way out of it once it's offered...

 

[jollyjacktar]

The pressure from a couple of countries - only a couple really matter to us - must be intense because I'm sure this (staying, in any military role) will be a politically costly decision. Canadians are tired of the Afghanistan mission; wrapping a rotting fish in fresh paper doesn't make it smell any sweeter.

I agree with you on this.  For example I was listening to Cross Country Checkup on CBC radio last night coming home from work.  The subject was about the Potash deal that went South.  The general concensus was that Harper only went thumbs down as a response to the strong voter opposition in Sask.  It was felt that it was purely a political decision and not an economic or business one.  He was concerned with his seats, period. 

This decision to extend, while I applaud it is opposed to the majority of Canadians.  Harper will take one on the chin for this and he must really be up against the wall to blink like this.  Just reading the comments howls of protest at the story link are the tip of the iceberg I believe.