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

[midget-boyd91]

+100
Now if only the majority of articles being written could share that same frame of mind and show the importance rather than what we see today.
But I'll most likely be old and grey before that ever happens.

 

[Flip]

Wow! Never Ever thought i'd see this here!

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/210617

Why Canada should stay

Al Qaeda poses a threat to this country that will not decrease if we withdraw troops from Kandahar, says Seth G. Jones

It would be easier ( for me ) if the media could be all good or all bad.
This opinion in the Star just confuses me. ;D

 

[The Bread Guy]

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Afghan lawmakers call for talks with Taliban, halt to NATO military operations
Associated Press, 8 May 07
Article link

Afghan lawmakers called for dialogue with Afghan Taliban fighters and an end to military operations by international forces unless they first come under attack, in a draft law passed Tuesday.

The draft law, which was passed by a voice vote in the upper house of parliament, said a differentiation must be made between Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaida fighters, and that negotiations should be held with Taliban militants from Afghanistan to persuade them to accept the Afghan government.

The resolution also called for international forces to end military operations unless they are attacked or if they have first consulted with the Afghan army, government or police.

Lt. Col. David Accetta, a U.S. military spokesman, said he was aware of the lawmakers' action but did not have an immediate response. "It remains to be seen what impact it will have," he said.

A spokeswoman at NATO's International Security Assistance Force declined immediate comment.

The bill would also need to be approved by the lower house and then signed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai before coming law. Karzai's spokesman couldn't be reached late Tuesday.

Karzai has previously called for negotiations to be held with Afghan members of the Taliban, and NATO military officials have said they would rather convince Taliban fighters to join the government than kill them during military action.

Western and Afghan officials say only a few members of the Taliban are hardcore, ideological fighters, and that many of the militants fight only for a paycheck or because they are forced to. Officials also say that many of the Taliban's hardcore leaders live in Pakistan, a charge Pakistan denies.

The draft bill says that Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaida fighters are the enemy of Afghanistan.

It also says that when the Afghan army and police ranks reach their target numbers, a timetable should be drafted for international military forces to leave the country. The army and police likely won't reach their target goals for several years.

 

[MikeM]

Afghan lawmakers called for dialogue with Afghan Taliban fighters and an end to military operations by international forces unless they first come under attack, in a draft law passed Tuesday.

Let Taliban pre-empt? no thanks, terrible idea.

There's no way the Taliban are willing to roll over and allow the AFG gov't to function on it's own, considering the Taliban were overthrown with force, I think they'll continue to fight to try and get it back.

EDIT: Modified for format error.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

We are there under their invitation.  If they don't want us there no longer then that's fine and most of the time we didn't fire first, hard to find the fockers.

 

[midget-boyd91]

Talk and negotiate with the Taliban....... ??? 
Does anyone else remember what happened when the Brits did that with the Taliban in Musa Qala? :brickwall:

 

[MikeM]

We are there under their invitation.  If they don't want us there no longer then that's fine and most of the time we didn't fire first, hard to find the fockers.

Very true Quag, majority of the time it was reactive rather than proactive, however I do not think any types of restrictions should be made, and I certainly believe that talking with the Taliban will solve nothing.

 

[KevinB]

I view this more of an approach that the US Military has used to great sucess in the previously disasterous Anbar province in Iraq.
  Due to the extreme nature of Al-Q and some insurgents they have isolated the Tribal Elders and Shieks (one of many spellings).

If the gov't can negotaite with them and still maintain their authority this makes a win win situation - as you will have reduced the enemy and increased friendly support in the area, all without combat.

In Anbar the local Sunni population have sided with the Iraqi gov't and MNFI to create a much more stabilized situation.

The extremists will kill any and all who dont go along with them and their views -- this is hardly a way to sustain a guerilla operation and downs them to failure.


Remember the 100% solution for Afghanistan is to have a stable Islamic Republic - capable of enforcing their laws.

 

[Weinie]

  This Hour's top story:

      Layton Calls Secret Afghanistan Visit Success - Discussions with Senate "Positive"

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

MikeM I totally agree.

 

[KevinB]

Taliban Jack is missing the point -- he wanted to break into full negotiations -- from what I see here a portion of the Afghan gov't is saying they want to consider dealign with some of the Afghan taliban.  Big Difference from throwing in the towle that JL wished to do.

 

[GAP]

Hmmm....only the Americans and the Canadians fight?

Warrior seeks an armySidelined Afghan heavyweight says he could tame Taliban with the right force
By SCOTT TAYLOR May 11, 2007
Article Link

SHEBIRGHAN, Afghanistan -- The gates of the compound were hurriedly pulled aside and three black Lexus armoured 4X4s raced into the courtyard. Braking hastily, the vehicles disgorged a dozen heavily armed guards who immediately established a protective cordon.

With the dust still settling, a giant of a man strode through the parked convoy in a flowing stripped green robe. Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, one of the most notorious former Afghan warlords, arrived for an interview.

As the primary commander of the Northern Alliance, Dostum's troops were instrumental in helping the U.S. to collapse the Taliban in 2001. However, in the post-war cycle of violence, instability and insurgency, the general has only played a marginal role. Despite winning a million votes in the 2004 election process, Dostum was excluded from President Hamid Karzai's cabinet.

Appointed to the symbolic post of army chief of staff, Dostum says he feels the time is right for him to once again enter the fray.

"I'll collect 10,000 fighters and you give us 10,000 fighters from the international community ... and then you'll see what will happen in just six months," said Dostum. "I would use 5,000 fighters as a reserve and 5,000 as an offensive force to push the Taliban. I am sure we would push the Taliban even out of Waziristan (Pakistan), not just Afghanistan."

The creation of a force of veteran Afghan fighters would serve to buy time for the fledgling Afghan National Army and then allow them to better prepare for combat with the Taliban, he said.

"Every day the ANA is engaged in the fighting -- but just 10 Taliban can disrupt an entire battalion of troops," said Dostum. "What will happen if you stage a wrestling match between a 12-year-old and a 6-month-old infant? Obviously the ANA cannot match the experience of those soldiers who have fought before."

Dostum says the tactics employed by the Taliban against the ANA and coalition forces are the same Afghan fighters used to oust the Soviets. "In these days, 100 Taliban fighters attack a district and destroy everything, kill the police chief, kill the governor and then simply vanish. Then the army comes," explained Dostum. "The Taliban withdraw and the only people left to die are civilians."

Dostum's criticism of the ANA's inability and unwillingness to enter into combat also extends to the foreign coalition forces, which he says have a mixed record of battlefield efficiency.

"I have friends who have given me intelligence that the people really fighting the Taliban from the international community are the United States soldiers and the Canadian soldiers," said Dostum. "Other nationals are not fighting. They are just in defensive positions."

In recent months Dostum has held meetings with a number of foreign ambassadors and military commanders from the international community. "If President Karzai gives me the power, I can guarantee him and assure the international community and the people of Afghanistan that we can play a significant role in defeating and breaking the back of the Taliban," Dostum said.
More on link

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe this puts a different slant on "Talking with the Taliban"

Talking replaces guns in war with the Taliban
By Tom Coghlan in Gereshk
Last Updated: 2:06am BST 11/05/2007

After more than a month of heavy fighting in north Helmand province of Afghanistan, around the towns of Gereshk and Sangin, the guns are largely silent and the talking has begun.
 
Intelligence suggests that many Taliban in Helmand are simply long-term unemployed local men

In the great tradition of tribal politics, the government and its British allies yesterday called a Jirga, a gathering of hundreds of Spin Giri (literally White Beards) in an effort to convince local tribesmen to reject the Taliban.

A gathering with an almost medieval atmosphere, it had been arranged for a week as a forum for setting out aid projects designed to win over local "hearts and minds". But there was a problem.

On Tuesday night a Nato bomb attack in support of American and Afghan forces was said to have killed 21 civilians in Sarwan Kala, a valley close to Sangin.

Brig John Lorimer, the British Army commander in the province, therefore had to begin with an apology.

"I deeply regret any incident of this nature," he told the 400-strong audience. "We go to great lengths to avoid the deaths of civilians."

It was not a good start and in the audience there was anger. "When they bombard the villages many innocent people die," said Haji Abdul Rapar, 40.

"They see that we are civilians through their technology, but still they drop bombs."

But ironically another event took place on Tuesday in Sarwan Kala that illustrated the different possible outcome of Britain's counter-insurgency campaign in Helmand.

A few hours before the bombing of the civilians, a Taliban commander named Haji Wali Mohammad held an angry meeting with local people.

According to tribal leaders, the community begged him and his 50-strong group of Taliban fighters to stop using the area to launch attacks.

"Haji Wali Mohammad refused and said he would continue with the jihad against the foreigners. So when he was walking home after the meeting the local people killed him and his two bodyguards," said a source. Nato commanders believe that with increasing security and a raft of aid projects they can begin to embolden the people in other areas to reject the Taliban, though such hopes must be weighed against the fury caused by continuing civilian deaths.

David Slinn, the senior British diplomat in the south, assessed the mood at yesterday's Jirga as one of "latent support" for the government.

Certainly there was little love for the Taliban, though it was fearfully expressed in whispers. Many elders seemed happier, though, to say that they simply wanted to be left in peace by every side. "People are deaf and dumb if you ask them to tell you their real feelings," said one elder before the meeting, refusing to give his name.

"We have no hope. If we say the government should lose power, we will be killed by one side. If we say they are good, we will be killed by the other."

However, as they left the elders seemed somewhat encouraged by some lavish promises of Western aid in the weeks to come. "This meeting was very beneficial," said a man who would only give his name as Haji Mohammad. "They speak of benefits for local people."

Within a week, work is to start on a 12-mile stretch of road in the district of Nad Ali, just south of Gereshk.

At the same time a much larger £10 million American-funded road scheme will begin in Gereshk and Sangin aiming to connect the two within five months. It will create 2,000 jobs for local people.

Western officials discreetly point out that intelligence suggests that many Taliban in Helmand are simply long-term unemployed local men, without ideological motivation, who are hired to fight on day wages. They hope the road project will help drain the pool of Taliban manpower.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=GAS3FYDU1B3QFQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/05/11/wafghan11.xml

And perhaps this discussion could be taken together with Dostum Rashid's offer of 10,000 troops to "finish off" the Taliban including those in Waziristan.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/60812.0.html


Problem 1 - definition of the Taliban (Mullah Omar et al; MO and Drug Lords;  MO, Drug Lords and anybody in arms; Or Rashid's definition - all Pashtun).

Problem 2 - apparently many of the esteemed Senators are also Drug Lords and I seem to recall hearing the Rashid was involved in the trade as well.

Is this actually an early indication of the Druggie Senators suing for peace?

Suppose:

NATO spring operations have been effective in shutting down the Helmand valley highway to Baluchistan, crimping opium exports.  No esports, no money.

NATO has successfully pushed the Druggie/Taliban back from Gereshk, Lashkar Gar, Maywand and have them held at Sangin, poised to move to Musa Qala and Tarin Kowt.  Druggies are getting squeezed despite the Taliban.  Suicide bombings won't solve that problem.

NATO hearts and minds campaigns, and just exposure to foreigners who are at least not worse than their old masters, is having an effect and prompting the grass to rise up and complain about the elephants fighting.  The locals are not as easily cowed or as productive - even if their is a bumper crop (Taliban have apparently been seen working in the fields to help bring in the harvest).

NATO projects are starting to dry up the supply of low cost labour for harvesting, transport and security.

Net effects  - drug lords in the Senate are seeing profits under threat and have decided enough is enough.  The Taliban, who has been their "muscle" may now be seen as a liability. 

Consequently they are willing to parley in the South and stabilize the situation and at the same time turn on the Taliban - Rashid's offer is just a concrete example.  Now it might be to his and some Senators advantage to clear up the Taliban before the US and the Afghan government can get to them.

Might there be some merit on taking Dostum at his word but dispersing his battalions amongst ANA and allied forces and keeping a tight leash on them to allow them to "find" the Taliban?

All wild supposition on my part with many assumptions .....

But I think there might be a change happening here.

 

[McG]

Negotiation between the Afghan government and Taliban elements is not a bad idea.  However, it does not require giving-up the fight before an agreement is reached.  It must also be the purview of the elected Afghan governmen, and the Taliban must be willing to negotiate. (It cannot be Jack Layton dictating “make an agreement with them or we go home” menwhile the Taliban don't want to talk as a collective)

Where Taliban leaders (or even leaders in neutral or grey positions) can be brought on to our side by negotiation, then the Afghan government should be engaging those leaders.  One of the things we should be doing, as SOP, is identifying to the Afghan government where these opportunities exist.

Where we can, we must help the local leaders (with their local concerns & problems) connect with their provincial authorities.  This works toward reconstruction at the same time that it displaces the power of belligerent Taliban elements.

Warrior seeks an army
Sidelined Afghan heavyweight says he could tame Taliban with the right force
By SCOTT TAYLOR May 11, 2007

I don't think re-empowering warlords & militia is a good idea for the country.  If these fighters are available, then they would help the country far more as leaders & a pool of experience within the developing ANA.

 

[Kirkhill]

I wonder if Rashid would accept becoming Honorary Colonel-in-Chief of Dostum's Own Regiment, a regular regiment of the ANA?  Heck it worked fine enough for the Campbells and the Covenanters.  ;D

 

[Old Sweat]

Kirkhill,

As someone with a father born in Edinburgh, all I can say is that seventeenth century Scotland is hardly worth emulation by anyone, least of all the Afghans.

 

[Kirkhill]

Old Sweat, as someone whose relatives were chased across the Carrick Hills by Bloody Clavers, I couldn't agree more.  The problem is I think Afghanistan is already emulating 16th century Scotland.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Taliban Jack is missing the point -- he wanted to break into full negotiations -- from what I see here a portion of the Afghan gov't is saying they want to consider dealign with some of the Afghan taliban.  Big Difference from throwing in the towle that JL wished to do.

Agreed much of the Taliban seems to be made up of the Southern Pastuns with tribal links to Afghanistan and the NWF, working to get the wedge in between them and the hardliners will help break the back of the insurgency and the Afghan government has been offering up amenesty for low rankers and other offers for several years and was in high level talks back in 2003 (date?) with portions of the tribes and Taliban leadership.

 

[Flip]

To that end Colin it makes sense.

Taliban Jack needs to butt the hell out of it because it's
a "family" thing, between Afghans.

If some not so bad guys want to join the good guys who are 
parliment to offer comment, or throw in any sponge?
( accounting for security concerns of course )

Jack has no idea how many deals he might queer or the
effects his brand of nonsense has in the region.

I seem to recall something about confidential talks between
Canada and an Arab country last month that came up in
Parliment because of a leak. (I'll look for some details)
By the way - Thanks Jack.

 

[a_majoor]

From "The Torch"

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/

Monday, May 14, 2007
What we should really be talking about

I recently received an e-mail I thought I'd share with you:

    Dear Mr. Brooks,

    First, let me compliment you on the quality of the analysis contained in your blog, as a member of the CF I am impressed by how often you “get it right”. I am even more impressed by your willingness to acknowledge when you don’t understand something well.

    This e-mail should stop there, but the truth is as a soldier recently returned from Afghanistan I have been quite disappointed lately by the quality of discussion surrounding the mission. For a while, The Torch was the only place I could find reasonable discussion of the CF mission, however, thanks to some of the links you have posted lately I have learned that there are others who are willing to examine the mission in a reasonable manner.

    Thankfully, I have realized yesterday that there is meaningful debate occurring about the mission in Afghanistan, it just isn’t happening on Parliament Hill, or in our newspapers or on our televisions and radios, it is happening on the Internet.

    Based on your post-entitled The Principled Left, I think our parliamentarians could take a lesson from you and Terry Glavin. As a soldier who has sworn to defend the democratic values of our society (with my life if necessary) it warms my heart to see two individuals from opposite ends of the political spectrum place their partisan politics aside to support the people of Afghanistan.

    What if Afghanistan is a cause that compels us to live up to the rhetoric contained in the International Bill of Human Rights, a UN document which both Canada and the Pre-Taliban government of Afghanistan supported:

    "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

    We all know the mission is difficult and the costs, financial and human, incredibly high. We know we will make mistakes. We know that non-combatants on both sides will be killed. We know Afghanistan has had a troubled past, and will have a troubled future for some years to come. We know that the Afghans may lie to us, mislead us, and perhaps they may misuse the resources we provide them.

    Because something isn’t easy, doesn’t mean that it is wrong. Because there is no immediate answer doesn’t mean we should avoid the question.

    If it takes a village to raise a child, what vast level of resources is required to rebuild an entire country?

    Afghanistan needs our help, and right now that help includes uniformed troops to maintain and promote security.

    The debate about whether or not we should remain in Afghanistan needs to stop and be replaced by more reasoned and educated debate about how best to help the people of Afghanistan. It would be nice to see all three party leaders place their political desires aside and work together to make Canada’s mission in Afghanistan something every Canadian can be proud of.



These aren't the words of the Canadian Forces, but rather the words of one soldier. But I would entreat our media and politicians to listen closely to the plaintive tone of this letter, and strive to improve the quality of debate in our country.

Our soldiers deserve better from you.