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

[The Bread Guy]

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.

To be fair, it's not up to the Committee to go if someone says, "it's not safe enough to go."

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.

Agree that it would be seen as a flip-flop (possible opposition messaging in an election:  he waited until the last possible second to do the right thing - assuming the opposition STILL thinks it's the right thing during the next election), and that it would go against the polling grain, even if sold and communicated well.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Now is the time at UA when we juxtapose! CF trainers for Afstan and NATO requirements
http://unambig.com/now-is-the-time-at-ua-when-we-juxtapose-cf-trainers-for-afstan-and-nato-requirements/

...
One wonders how long it will take the dim bunnies in our major media to connect certain dots...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[The Bread Guy]

Latest from the PMO (not from the PM's mouth, but a spokesperson), according to CTV.ca:

.... "After 2011, the government is considering the three following options: aid, development, and training in a non-combat role," Dimitri Soudas, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesperson, told CTV News Channel's Power Play.  "The hard work that's been done by Canadian soldiers, diplomats and development workers will continue, but in a very different way." ....

Quite the change from the PM's own words in January of this year:

.... the bottom line is that the military mission will end in 2011. There will be a phased withdrawal, beginning in the middle of the year. We hope to have that concluded by the end of that year. As you know the Obama administration, not coincidentally, is talking about beginning its withdrawal in 2011, at the same time we are. We will continue to maintain humanitarian and development missions, as well as important diplomatic activity in Afghanistan. But we will not be undertaking any activities that require any kind of military presence, other than the odd guard guarding an embassy ....

 

[Journeyman]

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.

Because I'm a "silver-lining" rather than "cloud" sort of guy    ....I think this is still marketable.

Harper has to take his Communications staff and slap them solidly. Then start a campaign citing all the Opposition parties' support, and the positive comments in the media blogs, and sell this as "WE are enacting the wishes of you, the electorate."

And say it over and over and over again.

Yes, Steven Staples, anarchy.ca, et al will have kittens. So what. The clamouring self-appointed experts will never be happy; that doesn't get them media exposure.

 

[MarkOttawa]

The prime minister cuts and runs and then returns to the, er, fray.  Not exactly a serious wartime leader.  To be perhaps too cute: "War if necessary but not necessarily war".  A good decision--if that's what it is--without any good explanation.

Mr Soudas was a pathetic, I would say disgraceful, exponent of the government's "position" on both the CBC and CTV politics shows this afternoon.  Not a minister of the crown available?  An ignorant mouthpiece instead (not that ministers are appreciably better)?  There is more I would like to say about this government, the opposition, and the major media relevant to the matter...but readers can probably surmise the general direction.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[GAP]

Troops would welcome extended mission in Afghanistan, says Canadian veteran
Article Link
By Matthew Fisher, Postmedia News November 8, 2010

KANDAHAR AIRFIELD, Afghanistan — Reports that Canada is seriously considering taking on a NATO training mission in Afghanistan after current combat operations end next summer have given a jolt of adrenalin to many troops now serving in Kandahar.

"If the second training rotation begins early in 2012, which seems likely, that would be perfect for me," speculated a sergeant now on his fourth Afghan tour. The combat engineer added that another rotation, this time "inside the wire" as a trainer, would be the perfect way for him to end his long military career.

Word of the possibility of a new military role for Canada in Afghanistan, to which Defence Minister Peter MacKay hinted strongly during a security conference in Halifax on Sunday, spread quickly among soldiers as they woke up across Kandahar on Monday morning.

After 152 deaths in Afghanistan, many Canadians want the troops to come home. However, among those in combat arms who have borne the brunt of the casualties, there is almost universal interest in being part of a potential, smaller, follow-on mission designed to assist Afghanistan's burgeoning security forces, which are to become responsible for security across the country in 2014.

Reluctant to see Canada leave Afghanistan after the crucial role it has played in Kandahar since early 2006, and in urgent need of 900 more skilled military trainers, NATO has spent months crafting an offer that would be difficult for the Harper government to refuse.

After years of complex operations that have involved heavily armed vehicles, artillery, close air support and surveillance drones, the Canadians have been invited to return to Afghanistan as soon as that mission ends, but next time with little more than their duffel bags and skills honed on the battlefield.

The Canadians would be "an absolutely superb fit" as trainers because they have combat experience, Lt.-Gen. Bill Caldwell IV, the American who runs all training for Afghan soldiers and police, said in an interview with Postmedia News early this summer.
More on link

 

[PuckChaser]

The prime minister cuts and runs and then returns to the, er, fray.  Not exactly a serious wartime leader.  To be perhaps too cute: "War if necessary but not necessarily war".  A good decision--if that's what it is--without any good explanation.

I'm going to have to disagree here. Harper long stated that he'd follow the wishes of Parliament, and that wish was total withdrawl by 2011. Now that the other parties have changed their tune, he has support to stay which he probably wanted to do in the first place, since total withdrawl was an out to lunch idea. It would have been political suicide for a minority government to state their position was to not completely follow the Parliament's resolution.

 

[The Bread Guy]

US/NATO not just twisting Canada's arm....

The US ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder cannot imagine the Netherlands turning its back on Afghanistan. At a lecture at The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies, the NATO ambassador said it would be logical for the Netherlands to send troops to protect Dutch police trainers in Afghanistan.

The Dutch parliament however, has great difficulty with the idea of sending troops back to Afghanistan. A Dutch mission in the province of Uruzgan only ended at the beginning of August.

The Netherlands is the first and so far the only country to end its Afghan mission. "Even Tonga has sent 50 people," said Mr Daalder, who originally comes from Holland.

Other countries may follow the Dutch example and withdraw their missions, thinks Mr Daalder. But the new strategy desperately needs trainers for police and soldiers, so that Afghanistan can take care of its own security in future ....

More at Radio Netherlands Worldwide here.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Lawrence Martin may have the DS solution in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/harpers-switcheroos-leave-grits-empty-handed/article1790576/

Harper’s switcheroos leave Grits empty-handed

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

In commenting once long ago about his star quarterback, the late Michigan State coach Duffy Daugherty found it hard to contain his enthusiasm over the flexibility of the young man. “Not only is he ambidextrous,” he told reporters. “He can throw with either hand!”

That kind of elasticity is a nice talent to have in football – and in politics as well. It’s among the principal reasons why Stephen Harper has maintained a lead over the Liberals throughout his five years in office.
The Prime Minister’s ambidexterity has just been witnessed with his seeming switcheroo on the question of maintaining troops in Afghanistan after 2011. He’s co-opting Liberal policy. Now it sounds like he, too, wants to have troops stay beyond the 2011 withdrawal deadline. It’s just what the Grits don’t want to hear, because it leaves them empty-handed.

Mr. Harper did the same last week with his move to block the buyoutof the potash industry by Australian interests. The Liberals and the NDP were salivating at the prospect of bruising the Tories with the “selling out Canada” charge. Given the heavy opposition in Saskatchewan to the sale, the parties saw an opportunity to crack the Harper stranglehold on the Prairies. But after leading many to believe he was about to approve the buyout, the PM changed course. Just what the Grits didn’t want to hear.

Mr. Harper’s years in office have been hallmarked by these types of migratory moves. On the big files – on unity, on the economy, on war – he has shown himself to be adept at one of the oldest tricks in the political book – adopting the other side’s positions. He’ll go for long periods hived off on the right, appearing much like an unyielding ideologue, but then, at the big-ticket wicket, remove his horns.

The potash decision brought on much condemnation from conservative purists, they who are hesitant to understand that the art of governance in this far-flung kingdom is reliant on compromise. The purists were up in arms as well when Mr. Harper escaped from the confines of his economic orthodoxy and brought in – hello John Maynard Keynes – his deficit-inducing stimulus program to help steer the country from recessionary blight. The same reaction greeted another one of the PM’s Bolshevik-friendly decisions – the one that saw him bail out the auto industry.

Conservatives are supposed to be about smaller government. The idea, as Ronald Reagan used to say, is to get the government off the backs of the people. Under the Harper government, small is big. Spending levels have been more akin to something you’d see from the NDP. As for getting off the backs of the people, it’s been well-documented how its degree of control knows no bounds.

Another example of the PM’s spurning of party gospel was the major move of his stewardship in regard to Quebec. In granting the Québécois nation status, he dropped his party’s aversion to special treatment for the province and adopted a policy that had been put forward by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. On Mr. Harper’s election in 2006, the cry had been that the West wants in. One of the first things he did was to cozy up to the beast from the East.

In taking some of his heretical stands, the PM’s hand has been forced by circumstance. Opening up to China, another move onto Liberal turf, was an example, as was the stimulus program. Pressure was becoming too great in both instances to do otherwise.

Thoroughbred right-siders can complain about all this – until they look at the results. Mr. Harper’s policy-making has been conservative enough to allow him to maintain rock-solid support from his base. At the same time, he’s occupied enough Liberal territory to leave that team lacking definition and at near historic lows in the polls.

Although it doesn’t always appear as such, this PM has learned the vital lesson. In politics, you win by throwing with both hands.

In my opinion a crass, partisan political motive is a better explanation for this move – IF it happens - better than either pressure from allies or thoughtful policy analysis.

 

[MarkOttawa]

“Today’s essential Afghan reading”--Indeed it is, including BruceR.’s concluding observations at Flit.  Does give one furiously to think:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_11_08.html#006799

Matthieu Aikins in the Walrus, "Last Stand in Kandahar." The cover photo(s) of Canadian soldiers in dress greens are a little misleading as the article is less about the Canadian presence than it is about the effects of the ISAF presence as a whole on Kandahar and environs. Aikins talks about a lot of things that few other commentators have been noting about the situation, like the drain of any talented Afghans into support roles for ISAF:

As an internal ISAF assessment of Kandahar City noted, “An ironic side-effect of the American civilian surge in Kandahar is that, because we have hired many of the best educated and motivated Afghans to support us, fewer talented Afghans are available to work for the Afghan government itself in Kandahar City.”..

It's hard to escape the conclusion that this is the largest, almost unbeatable problem with large scale non-host nation counterinsurgency, and for that matter, how we Canadians once saw "responsibility to protect" missions in general. For western countries to deploy sufficient numbers of their own troops to thoroughly pacify a "failed state" requires the injection of so much economic and social distortion that any positive effects of the troop presence risk being completely negated. It is not irrational to conclude that "nation-building" in the worst parts of the world can only be done with a much lighter footprint. Which comes with its own set of problems of course (see also Congo, Democratic Republic of).

Here’s another must-read by Mr Aikins, from Harper’s Magazine a year ago; he knows the territory and people:

The master of Spin Boldak:
Undercover with Afghanistan’s drug-trafficking border police
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/12/0082754

Mark
Ottawa

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'm going to have to disagree here. Harper long stated that he'd follow the wishes of Parliament, and that wish was total withdrawl by 2011.

Not exactly - the March 2008 resolution (text attached) mentions leaving Kandahar, not Afghanistan.

 

[PuckChaser]

Not exactly - the March 2008 resolution (text attached) mentions leaving Kandahar, not Afghanistan.

That wording is why I never thought we'd be leaving Afghanistan completely. The way the MSM has portrayed it though, we're taking our ball and going home.

 

[The Bread Guy]

That wording is why I never thought we'd be leaving Afghanistan completely. The way the MSM has portrayed it though, we're taking our ball and going home.

True dat, based in no small part on what politicians are saying (and not saying).

Meanwhile, a Globe & Mail editorial is endorsing a inside the wire training mission ....

....  Afghanistan will only be safe if the Afghan National Police and Army are dominant enough for the Karzai government to set the terms of negotiations. Afghans hold their security institutions in high regard (92 per cent think the ANA is honest and fair), but they need outside help.

Canadians have been providing that, in the Taliban heartland of Kandahar. The experience has given Canadians perhaps the best sense, of all NATO forces, of how Afghanistan security forces can help do nation-building, fight the Taliban, and defend their own people in the field. So a Canadian training force of 750 military trainers and around 200 support staff in Kabul would make a meaningful contribution at less risk to us ....

... and a U of O prof says it may not be a good idea having Parliament vote on the mission, via Postmedia News:

.... "I'm certainly in favour of rigorous debate in the House of Commons and I do think that it's obligatory for the government to present to the Commons any change in the mission and what it plans to do .... That being said, I think it's problematic that we're holding these votes in the House and making it seem that it's the House that decides whether or not the military is deployed." ....

 

[MarkOttawa]

Deploying forces is a crown (i.e. cabinet, effectively now PM, the constantly evolving constitution)  prerogative.  As is strictly speaking a declaration of war which nobody does any more anyway.  The Conservative  gov't made a big, fake populist, deal in 2006 about seeking HoC approval for major military deployments.  But no vote on Haiti this year (HoC  not sitting, warm and fuzzy anyway).

And yesterday the PM's mouthpiece--and a terrible one at that, Dimitri Soudas, where does he get these types?--was strongly implying that because any new Afstan mission would be non-combat no HoC vote was needed.  Down with populism, up with crown prerogative.

Unless declarations of war actually come back into fashion or use.  In which case maybe Parliament should indeed decide:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/going-to-war-parliament-will-decide/article1281065/

Mark
OttawaMark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

Deploying forces is a crown (i.e. cabinet, effectively now PM, the constantly evolving constitution)  prerogative.  As is strictly speaking a declaration of war which nobody does any more anyway.  The Conservative  gov't made a big, fake populist, deal in 2006 about seeking HoC approval for major military deployments.  But no vote on Haiti this year (HoC  not sitting, warm and fuzzy anyway).

And yesterday the PM's mouthpiece--and a terrible one at that, Dimitri Soudas, where does he get these types?--was strongly implying that because any new Afstan mission would be non-combat no HoC vote was needed.  Down with populism, up with crown prerogative.

Unless declarations of war actually come back into fashion or use.  In which case maybe Parliament should indeed decide:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/going-to-war-parliament-will-decide/article1281065/

Mark
OttawaMark
Ottawa

Without wishing to drag the debate too far off track our Constitution provides for a division of powers:

1. The decision to go to war rests with the crown - as MarkOttawa correctly describes it, it is a "crown prerogative; but

2. The power to tax and to provide money for the sovereign's wars rests, exclusively, with parliament.

This system has emerged in our constitution over more than 1,000 years - it actually predates William the Conqueror and Magna Carta, finding its origins in the Anglo Saxon witenagemot, although that body did not always, or even often, perhaps, restrict taxation it did have the power to constrain kings because it did have the power to choose them.

Parliament's duty - to raise taxes, or not - gives it, not the crown, the ultimate authority over the military and its use.

 

[PuckChaser]

But no vote on Haiti this year (HoC  not sitting, warm and fuzzy anyway).

Do you want a vote every time we do a humanitarian mission with the DART? As if some countries would be worthy of our help and some aren't? Why don't we just hold a vote in Parliament everytime a unit heads down for Southern Drive, or guys going on their Ranger course?

If troops are going into combat or are supporting a major UN/NATO Chap 6/7, then by all means vote. Otherwise, let the ELECTED government do their job and govern.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen, is an interesting take on a possible vote on the Afghanistan mission:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Vote+Afghan+mission+would+create+constitutional+convention+expert+argues/3803763/story.html

Vote on Afghan mission would create 'constitutional convention,' expert argues
 
By Juliet O'Neill, Postmedia News

November 10, 2010

An international affairs expert questions the wisdom of a possible vote in the House of Commons on a proposed Canadian troop-training mission in Afghanistan.

Philippe Lagasse, a University of Ottawa professor, says such votes may reduce government accountability, disarm opposition parties and muddy what should be direct lines of command from government to the military.

Lagasse, who teaches at the graduate school of public and international affairs, is specializing in the history of intersections of government, Parliament and Canadian military deployment.

He says yet another vote on armed forces work in Afghanistan may be creating a new "constitutional convention" that may tie future governments' hands.

"I'm certainly in favour of rigorous debate in the House of Commons and I do think that it's obligatory for the government to present to the Commons any change in the mission and what it plans to do," Lagasse said Tuesday.

"That being said, I think it's problematic that we're holding these votes in the House and making it seem that it's the House that decides whether or not the military is deployed."

The government has floated a possible plan to send up to 1,000 troops into Afghanistan to train Afghan troops after the Canadian combat mission ends at the end of 2011, as pledged in a motion to end the combat mission approved by a majority in the House of Commons in 2008.

New Democratic Party defence critic Jack Harris, whose party opposed that mission extension, said Tuesday there ought to be another vote if the government wants to go ahead with "this monumental flip-flop" by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Harper said last Winter that all but maybe one soldier will be withdrawn.

Liberal Foreign Affairs critic Rob Rae said it's too soon to say how the matter should be resolved until the government provides a specific proposal.

"On one hand it is more democratic in a sense," to have a vote, Lagasse said. On the other hand, he recounts his analysis of what happened as a result of the last vote and it may not be so democratic.

"It allows the government to shift its responsibilities for these decisions to the House and, in so doing, as we saw over the past two years, what the government then claims is 'We're just following the dictates of the House and we really don't have to answer these types of questions about it, it's the will of the House,' " he said.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Prof. Lagasse is, technically, correct. Parliament should not be allowed to tie the government's hands, but given that the government does not need to come to parliament every time it wants to spend money on overseas military operations – or much of anything else, for that matter, it is hard to see how else Parliament might express the popular will.

 

[GAP]

As was stated earlier....Parliament should control the funds for military activities by approving/disapproving the budget. If they feel strongly enough about it, they will vote it down.

The government should stop this endless rhetoric about Parliament approving each and every mission. They have the authority, use it, or failing that make it a confidence vote.....  : either way it's decided....

 

[Edward Campbell]

As was stated earlier....Parliament should control the funds for military activities by approving/disapproving the budget. If they feel strongly enough about it, they will vote it down.

The government should stop this endless rhetoric about Parliament approving each and every mission. They have the authority, use it, or failing that make it a confidence vote.....  : either way it's decided....

Unless, of course, it, the government, doesn't care about parliament, beyond using it to embarrass the Liberals ...

 

[The Bread Guy]

Unless, of course, it, the government, doesn't care about parliament, beyond using it to embarrass the Liberals ...

For the win!  Sigh....

Edited to add:  then again, it's not just Parliament embarrassing Iggy now:

The Stephen Harper government’s decision to keep a significant number of troops in Afghanistan past the scheduled July 2011 pullout didn’t come as a surprise to Canadian Peace Alliance cochair Derrick O’Keefe.

(....)

According to O’Keefe, under Michael Ignatieff’s leadership, the federal Liberals have made it easy for the Harper government to make this decision.

“If you had to blame one person or party for this move right now,” he said, “you can actually fault Ignatieff and the Liberals more so because they have been publicly advocating for this war for some time.”

O’Keefe argues that both the Conservative and Liberal parties are ideologically in favour of the war in Afghanistan, as well as being receptive to pressure from NATO and the U.S. government to extend the mission. Canadians should question the timing of the announcement, he said, charging that the Harper government is using Remembrance Day to “drum up patriotism for this war”.

More here.