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

[MarkOttawa]

Col (ret'd) Alain Pelerrin replies to an editorial in the Toronto Star:
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/217484

It's too early to leave

May 25, 2007 04:30 AM

Refocus Canada's Afghan mission
http://www.thestar.com/article/216557

Editorial, May 23.

While your editorial examines the future of Afghanistan, its conclusion is at a variance to the reality of Afghanistan today: Afghans are weary of 30 years of war and want to rid their country of the Taliban. They want their country to become a better place in which to work and raise their families, and they are taking steps to achieve this aim.

Aided by the Canadian Forces and the armies of other countries, Afghan National Army troops in Kandahar province are isolating the Taliban. Since last September, the insurgents have been reduced from formed bodies of fighters to suicide bombers; Canadian troops train Afghan military and police forces to take up their role in protecting the Afghan population; and the civilian population risk their lives by supplying valuable intelligence information to coalition forces to neutralize insurgent forces. This is particularly so in the Panjwayi valley, where life is turning productive.

In Canada, we yearn for the world's respect for Canadian values, but we sometimes forget that respect goes to those who lead; and we agree with Prime Minister Stephen Harper when he declares that "you can't lead from the bleachers." We conclude that a hasty Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan would be a victory for terrorists.

Rather than an "exit strategy," a strategy for success will win the day for Canada as well as Afghanistan – just ask our troops. They will tell you that the Canadian Forces are making a difference on the ground and that progress has been achieved in the last year. For this achievement, Canada gains respect amongst our allies.

Alain Pellerin, Executive Director, Conference of Defence Associations, Ottawa

Mark
Ottawa

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

In the event that we had to leave afghanistan in 2009, could soldiers choose to stay there? Sort of like the Boer War (although that was a LONG time ago). What about the option of having troops choose to either stay or leave? So instead of a regular unit being sent on rotation, there would be people who choose to go. Would this work at all? Providing that Canada still provides the same amount of aid to the country and all troops got the same about of benefits over there as they do now. Maybe if a cap on how many people could be their (2500).

I think that's called....becoming a mercenary.

 

[MarkOttawa]

A good column by Rex Murphy:
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070526/COMURPHY26/Headlines/headdex/headdexComment/13/13/19/

Stephen Harper, effectively, began his term as Prime Minister with a surprise visit to Canadian troops in Afghanistan. That trip, more than a year ago, was widely regarded as politically courageous. He was, in pundit-and-panel jargon, taking ownership of the mission. Now near the wrap-up of an increasingly contentious sitting of Parliament he has gone to Afghanistan again. There have been many issues to confront the Prime Minister since he took office in February of last year. Afghanistan is the one, which by his own choice and actions, will define him.

The Afghanistan mission is for many Canadians perplexing, a difficult mix of the horrible and the ideal. The overriding goals of our presence in Afghanistan meet every humanitarian checklist. It is one of the world's poorest countries. It has been a playground for the clashes of the world's great powers since Kipling wrote his still marvellous Kim, and extolled the glories and romance of playing "the great game." It was the nursery of the Taliban and the nest of viperous al-Qaeda - the first being religious monomaniacs of a barbarous fundamentalism, the second a conspiratorial and murderous band whose toxic ambitions produced the great slaughter of 9/11, and the vicious aftershocks of Bali, Madrid and London.

To take a country out of the hands of outlaws, to rid it of a clerical autocracy, to give hope to its long-suffering citizens that they could taste a little of the liberties that we take for granted - these were admirable, undebatably worthy goals.

The difficult or perplexing part of this mission came with the understanding that none of its worthy goals could be achieved without a concomitant military commitment. If we wished to help Afghanistan and its citizens, Canadian soldiers would have to go to that country to fight and kill, to fight and be killed...

...If we wished to do good things in Afghanistan we would have to do hard things as well. And we would have to do more hard things at first than good. If we wanted to help we had first to fight so that help was possible at all.

This is what is specious about the NDP position on the mission. In their talk of the mission not being "balanced." They agree with schools being built. And women and girls once again allowed an education. They agree with all that is easily stated, but with the immense qualification that it be painlessly achieved. They ignore or deny that active combat with the Taliban and its sinister parasite, al-Qaeda, is an inescapable precondition for any substantive humanitarian effort.

Afghanistan offers only two options. We can clear out altogether, or we can stay to fight and build. There is no middle point.

But Canadians' support for the mission is, for these very reasons, a very contingent affair. Our sense of ourselves elevates the idea of helping so forlorn a country to an appealing nobility. The knowledge, however, of what the mission will cost and has cost in the lives of our soldiers, the knowledge too that, in a conflict with a furtive and reckless enemy, innocent Afghans will inevitably be killed, necessarily darkens the very idea of our participation in a conflict half a planet away.

Mr. Harper, as noted, has now been twice to Afghanistan. It is evidently the one issue on which - as opposed to the environment, income trusts, and even accountability - he is determined neither to bend or switch. Which should be held to his credit. For however significant these other issues are, and whatever the pitch of the rhetoric that surrounds them, the Afghanistan mission is fundamentally more serious, politically and morally. Banning light bulbs or imposing a carbon tax is, thank God, not yet a matter of life and death.

But whether he has given a sustained articulation of our mission there, or whether indeed his increasingly partisan persona disables him from making the disinterested case our being in Afghanistan requires, are distressingly open questions...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

If he articulates support he is a partisan war-mongering Bushite trying to draw peoples' attention from real problems like fluorescent light bulbs and tax relief for Quebecers.  If he fails to articulate support he is poorly serving the needs of Afghans, Canadian troops, NATO and the UN, not to mention the great mass of Canadians who really want to be told how great they are as they sit on their couches waiting to find out who wins the Stanley Cup.

And lord help the PM that pre-empts the Stanley Cup.

 

[Edward Campbell]

A good column by Rex Murphy:
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070526/COMURPHY26/Headlines/headdex/headdexComment/13/13/19/

Mark
Ottawa

I know I’m repeating myself but I think, maybe I really just hope and maybe it is, yet again, the triumph of hope over experience, but, I think that Prime Minister Harper is doing more- rather a lot more - than making the Afghan was his own.  He might be reshaping Canadian foreign policy in a rather stealthy manner.

It is important to recall that we have only ever had three foreign policies:

1. Anglophobia – under Mackenzie King;

2. Leading Middle Power – under St Laurent (with a Helpful Fixer variation under Pearson – but this was far more words than deeds); and

3. Timorous Isolationism – under Trudeau and reprised by Chrétien (Mulroney did a variant of this – Festung North America – in the ‘80s).

I think/hope Harper understands that Canadians are bored by foreign policy and worried that it may take resources away from their sacred cows: ”free” health care and the pogey – thus he declines to talk about it but he understands that we need, desperately need to reverse the Timorous Isolationism because, as a long standing policy, it has done, is doing and will do serious harm to Canada’s political and economic interests around the world.

Afghanistan, I think, matters little to Harper except that it is a tool which he can use to reshape our foreign policy, our foreign service, our military and, without Canadians really noticing, our national attitude – our outlook and world view.  I think he thinks about the military in exactly the same way: it (you) are another tool.  He wants to be a good craftsman so he will keep you sharp and well oiled.  He will use you as hard as necessary to get the job (reshaping policy and Canadians’ attitudes) done – sometimes he may use you harder than you might like, he may even misuse and abuse you – but it’s hard to imagine misuse and abuse which could be any worse than we endured between 1968 and 2005.  But you will go along with it happily enough because being tools is (or ought to be) why you joined in the first place.

I think it’s working.  I think the world is paying more and more respectful attention to Canada – they started, in fairness, when Paul Martin took on the Kandahar task and made it look and sound like we were serious.  (I think the world understood that the initial ISAF commitment was a cheap, cynical ploy to avoid an unpopular mission in Iraq, but staying the course and committing combat troops to Kandahar changed perceptions.)

I also think Canadian attitudes are changing – s l o w l y.  Afghanistan is not a popular mission; it is, as Rex Murphy explains, too complex for Canadians to grasp in a series of 10 second sound-bites and it goes against the established mythology, the narrative propagated by the Trudeau worshipping cult of the ignorant in the chattering classes, that we are a ‘nation of peacekeepers.’  Canadians are not, yet, ready or willing to abandon that mythology – they cannot be expected to change until we have better chattering classes.

In any event, if I’m right, you’re watching change happen without the normally accustomed fanfare – Harper will not hire Jennifer Welsh to rewrite the pap originating from the Lester B Pearson building.  There’s no need, he’s not gong to debate this in parliament or the media – he’s just going to make the changes; consultation would not be helpful.

If he’s smart he’s going to own a calmer, quieter Afghan mission – with a HUGE public relation effort aimed at emphasizing the development and diplomacy issues.  I think the DND public affairs juggernaut is actually out in front on this – I think some of the coverage of the death of Cpl. McCully reflects DND’s new narrative: “we’re mentoring the Afghans, helping them to help themselves.  It’s the ‘next evolution’"  - as Globe and Mail reporters Murray Campbell, Timothy Appleby and Graeme Smith put it in their report, parroting words fed to them by the DND PA people, I suspect.

 

[GAP]

Timorous Isolationism

Might there not be a Ruxted article pointing out this fallacy?

 

[observor 69]

If he’s smart he’s going to own a calmer, quieter Afghan mission – with a HUGE public relation effort aimed at emphasizing the development and diplomacy issues.  I think the DND public affairs juggernaut is actually out in front on this – I think some of the coverage of the death of Cpl. McCully reflects DND’s new narrative: “we’re mentoring the Afghans, helping them to help themselves.  It’s the ‘next evolution’"  - as Globe and Mail reporters Murray Campbell, Timothy Appleby and Graeme Smith put it in their report, parroting words fed to them by the DND PA people, I suspect.

Yes I hear you Mr.Campbell,  "but"  ,  what if the mission just drags on year ,  after year,  with it's annual toll of casualties.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think the missions will drag on, year after year – rather as LGen Leslie, amongst others, has been predicting for a few years now.  I also think that O’Connor and Harper have come around to this way of thinking.  That’s why, I think, again, (of course I cannot know) they have both started to say, “well, yes, 2009 is as long as parliament has, currently, authorized the mission but if the job isn’t done we will go back to the well” – hoping to convince enough of the Ignatieff Liberals that enough progress is being made to justify staying longer.

I also think that Harper is negotiating or will soon negotiate with NATO to get relief in 2009 – so that we can send another combat force elsewhere, possibly Africa, maybe elsewhere in the Islamic Crescent to continue the global war on barbarism - as part of Canada as Leader policy.

For the moment, I expect to see a ‘new narrative’ from DND stressing, as Rex Murphy did, that we cannot develop until the defending has been accomplished – we’ve done that part of the heavy lifting in Kandahar, almost, anyway, so we can expect to start seeing the fruits of our development labours when we open our morning papers or tune into the TV news.  That offensive must be waged by the PRT, the mentoring teams and, especially, the DND Public Affairs branch.

Casualties are bearable if they are being taken in support of ‘development.’  The 'target' isn't just the Taliban; Harper and O'Connor must also fight deeply entrenched Canadian attitudes.

 

[MarkOttawa]

E.R. Campbell:  Gen. Hillier seems to be thinking along the lines you suggest (I used this quote before):
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/217613

The Canadian military is undergoing a revolution in what it does and how it does it – designed to let the country take its deserved place on the world stage, Canada's top soldier says.

Canadian Forces will be deployed in large groups, under Canadian commanders, to give the country a more noticeable military presence during conflict so politicians can take a greater role in post-war discussions, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said in a speech in Toronto last night.

"We're trying to give Canada a seat at the table, an opportunity to influence a region, a country, an event in accordance with our interests and with our values because of our (military) contribution," Hillier told reporters after his speech at the annual Canadian Press dinner...

Hillier said that for decades the military has been trying to be the public service of Canada, and that too will change.

"We are the Canadian forces and our raison d'etre is to conduct operations and at times, on your behalf, actually apply disciplined managed violence," Hillier said in his speech...

I loved your three phases of Canadian foreign policy, esp.

1. Anglophobia – under Mackenzie King

The most powerful bureaucrat in Ottawa in the 1930s, O.D. Skelton (Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs--King was the Minister, as well as PM) was also very anti-British.  He essentially saw the point of Canadian foreign policy as freeing us from the grasp of the English and asserting our independence.  And avoid war in Europe if at all possible (it wasn't but not for want of trying to get out of it).
http://www.international.gc.ca/department/skelton/hillmer-en.asp

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

I wonder if, by the end of the summer, Harper might not have tried to integrate The Arnold Effect, "Post Kyoto", 0.7% of GDP to Foreign Aid and Hillier's "Vimy Effect" into a coherent foreign policy.

One of the Conservative's big complaints about Kyoto was shipping dollars overseas to "needy"countries like China and Russia in return for carbon credits.  At the same time they have been supportive of the Pearsonian 0.7% of GDP (actually Pearson alluded to 0.7% of GNP which is calculated differently and IIRC is a smaller value than GDP.....but never mind for now).

Meanwhile Harper has got the UN head of the Kyoto protocol to come forward and say "Oh NOW I understand - you're not against Kyoto.  Just against crippling Canada's economy to achieve it.  Let us know your plan and we look forward to next year's donation."

Harper also has some additional heavyweight support in the form of China, India and Brazil as well as the US.  Europe appears willing to accept that they will be going their own gait.  All of which means that the US (post Bush) will be less isolated and along with it Canada.

Now if Harper were to work towards increasing foreign aid to 0.7% of GDP by a combination of Low Carbon energy projects in the Third World (the stated but convoluted goal of carbon credits) and "Vimy Effect" nation building then he might be able to defray a lot of the Left's animus.

And I note that the National Post has a big write up on Governor Arnie coming to Canada.

Some key quotes:

"If you are against taking actions against greenhouse gases and carbon emissions your political base will melt away as sure as the polar ice caps.  You will become a political penguin on a smaller and smaller ice floe drifting out to sea.  Goodbye my little friend".    (Translation: The mob's heading this way.  If you don't stay with the mob it is you that is isolated.)

Interviewer (Linda Frum): "Your advisor (Terry Tamminen) seemed to suggest that Stephen Harper is an environmental girly-man,.."
Governor Arnold: "Terry does not speak on my behalf.........We are interested in working with Canada and trying to figure out how we can confront and fight global warming together.  Attacking each other, and saying negative things, is not going to solve anyone's problems."  (Translation:  Room for manoeuvre so we all look good here).

(The Governor) blames a lack of progress in the (environmental) movement on misguided "guilt tactics."  He insists that instead, environmentalism needs to become "cool, cutting edge, and sexy."  Improved technology rather than scolding anti-materialism is the Schwarzenegger way.

"....Whether it's selling my movies, selling body building , or other businesses I've had, I'm always trying to figure out: How can you make this big?  And now it's the same thing with the environment. We just have to find the groove.  Al Gore did it his way. He went as far as he can go. I do it my way, which is different but complimentary."

If somebody wants to pursue the Green end of this discussion please take it back to The Global Warming Superthread http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32987.0.html

I merely bring these things up here as they relate to Harper's major foreign and domestic policy problems.  Kyoto, Afghanistan and Development are all hot buttons for the opposition.  He has some interesting cards to play this summer while the opposition is out of the limelight.

And I indulge in some wishful thinking.........

 

[observor 69]

If this isn't dynamite I don't know what is !!  Call me stupid but is this not way ahead of anything Harper has said is "the New government" foreign or military policy. I mean yea it makes some kind of sense but boy I'll bet a bunch that to Joe average Canadian this is a real news flash.
This to me is the key paragraph :
"Canadian Forces will be deployed in large groups, under Canadian commanders, to give the country a more noticeable military presence during conflict so politicians can take a greater role in post-war discussions, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said in a speech in Toronto last night."

I have read that Hillier had easy access to the PMO and I can't see him saying this kind of a public statement unless he felt it was in line with where Harper was going.


http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/217613

Military faces 'revolution'
TheStar.com - News - Military faces 'revolution'

Hillier cites new recruiting, training

May 25, 2007
Kerry Gillespie
Queen's Park Bureau

The Canadian military is undergoing a revolution in what it does and how it does it – designed to let the country take its deserved place on the world stage, Canada's top soldier says.

Canadian Forces will be deployed in large groups, under Canadian commanders, to give the country a more noticeable military presence during conflict so politicians can take a greater role in post-war discussions, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said in a speech in Toronto last night.

"We're trying to give Canada a seat at the table, an opportunity to influence a region, a country, an event in accordance with our interests and with our values because of our (military) contribution," Hillier told reporters after his speech at the annual Canadian Press dinner.

This is something Canada has not done since Vimy Ridge in World War I, he said.

The Canadian contribution in the decisive battle at Vimy Ridge is often cited as a reason the country, until then viewed as little more than a British colony, won the right to separately sign the Versailles peace treaty.

Hillier said that for decades the military has been trying to be the public service of Canada, and that too will change.

"We are the Canadian forces and our raison d'etre is to conduct operations and at times, on your behalf, actually apply disciplined managed violence," Hillier said in his speech.

The primary role of the military is to protect Canadians at home.

And there's a renewed focus on that, he said.

The military is refining the special forces, and training and equipping them for possible counter-terrorist activities on Canadian soil, he added.

It is changing the way it recruits, trains and equips soldiers.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Where has it come from?
I find myself asking this question again and again.
    Where has this expectation that national reconstruction can be done inside of a year, and produce a tiny little clone of Canada with its own little copy of our Charter, its own little CBC, its own little three-parties-pandering-to-the-center political system, and instant tradition of law and order, come from?  How long were we in Germany to rebuild and stabilize West Germany, a nation with a long tradition of democratic responsible government?  How long did the mission last in the former Yugoslavia?  How about Cyprus?  Has any of the UN missions in Africa ever produced a stable self=governing body whose institutions match the harsh criteria our reconstruction of Afghanistan is being asked to? 
    The UN was allowed to stumble from outright failure, to disaster, to limited but quantifiable success, with huge costs in life and treasure with no one noticing, or much caring (save those of us who had to strap on the blue and board the silly white vehicles), but when we act outside the UN umbrella our media and public are suddenly demanding that we do in a single year what the UN requires decades to even attempt, often to total failure.  Where has this expectation come from?  Not from a study of history, for there have never been historical instances of nation building in a country so devoid of existing resources and infrastructure, with so many and powerful vested interests in undermining public order.  The expectation has come from the media, whose collective ignorance of not only history, but the current events they are supposed to be reporting is as colossal as it is disgraceful.
    The next time that a reporter asks a Canadian policy maker or the CDS about a timetable for getting Canada out of Afghanistan, shall we reply that we will be out of Afghanistan with our mission objectives achieved to our satisfaction, long before the Canadian Media and its pet civilian think tanks pull their collective heads out of their rectums for a breath of fresh air and a quick reality check?

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Hillier said that for decades the military has been trying to be the public service of Canada, and that too will change.

"We are the Canadian forces and our raison d'etre is to conduct operations and at times, on your behalf, actually apply disciplined managed violence," Hillier said in his speech.

The primary role of the military is to protect Canadians at home.

And there's a renewed focus on that, he said.

The military is refining the special forces, and training and equipping them for possible counter-terrorist activities on Canadian soil, he added.

It is changing the way it recruits, trains and equips soldiers.

Man I love this guy! This has been our whole problem ever since Hellyer. We've been a social science testing ground! You can see it every policy from Second Language Training to prices charged for PMQs (not about breaks for soldiers but tagging prices to the local economy so as not to pee off the local landlords). We'd better hope this guy sticks around and survives the political battles long enough to set us back on our feet again. there are plenty of folks in this country especially on the political left who will see this as heresy of the worst kind...many of them belong to the Liberal party of Canada and will not enjoy hearing this kind of challenge. I think Harper and the Conservatives are on the right track but their lack of a majority and stall in the polls doesn't indicate that the rest of the country (read Ontario and Quebec) is ready to go the same route as them in many policies not just Defence and Foreign Affairs.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Man I love this guy! This has been our whole problem ever since Hellyer. We've been a social science testing ground! You can see it every policy from Second Language Training to prices charged for PMQs (not about breaks for soldiers but tagging prices to the local economy so as not to pee off the local landlords). We'd better hope this guy sticks around and survives the political battles long enough to set us back on our feet again. there are plenty of folks in this country especially on the political left who will see this as heresy of the worst kind...many of them belong to the Liberal party of Canada and will not enjoy hearing this kind of challenge. I think Harper and the Conservatives are on the right track but their lack of a majority and stall in the polls doesn't indicate that the rest of the country (read Ontario and Quebec) is ready to go the same route as them in many policies not just Defence and Foreign Affairs.

With respect, IHS, Gen. Hillier is peripheral to the message.  The message was crafted in both the PMO (Prime Minister's Office – the political heart of the government) and the PCO (Privy Council Office – the policy head of the government) and was approved in both places, too.  They are, broadly, Gen. Hillier's words but the ideas belong to Stephen Harper, Ian Brodie and Kevin Lynch.  Brodie and Lynch, unlike Rick Hillier, have real power in Ottawa – including the power to put Gen. Hillier out on the street on a moment's notice.

There are three good reasons why Hillier is the messenger:

1. He's newsworthy, in and of himself.  He and his handlers have worked very, very hard t make him both accessible and quotable – it's party in Hillier's nature but the communications skills and tactics have also been nurtured.  The media follows him because he's usually good for a sound-bite;

2. He believes in the Harper/Brodie/Lynch message.  He's not just a mercenary voice.  These are his views.  Hillier is an honest man – Harper, Brodie and Lynch know that.  He is telling us what he thinks – it's just that he's allowed to say what he thinks because his views are in accord with those of the government-of-the-day.  Those rule have always governed public comments by senior officials – those who speak out without the approval of the government-of-the-day are fired (Adm. John Anderson (CDS in 1993)) or resign (VAdm Chuck Thomas (VCDS to Prince John de Chastelain)); and

3. He is totally deniable.  If whatever he says draws too much fire the government can deny that he is their voice.  That's a fiction, of course, but it is a fiction which all political parties – even the BQ – understand is necessary and desirable.

Let us give Gen. Hillier full marks for all the excellent things he has said and done – let us not believe, not for a moment, that he is out there telling the world about his own policies.

 

[observor 69]

As per my comments above I consider this pretty powerful stuff (see the Star article link also).
And many thanks Mr.Campbell for your excellent comments, now I see where Harper et al are heading.
So somehow "the New Government" figured out, had to be with great input from Brodie and Lynch, that Canada needed to build up our sickly military into a competent medium sized force capable of :
"Canadian Forces will be deployed in large groups, under Canadian commanders, to give the country a more noticeable military presence during conflict so politicians can take a greater role in post-war discussions, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier said in a speech in Toronto last night."

And that message had to be a given to Hillier by the two 'Eminence Gris'.
I guess my secondary message here is has the MSM figured all this out and when does the shouting start from the MSM and politicans.

Oh and I have to add this quote from Mr.Layton:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070526.wlayton0526/BNStory/Front

Layton says new approach needed in Afghanistan
SEAN PATRICK SULLIVAN

Canadian Press

May 26, 2007 at 6:04 PM EDT

Toronto — Following the death of yet another Canadian soldier in Afghanistan, NDP Leader Jack Layton says he hopes Canadians will ask the government to take a different approach to combat in the war-torn country.

Corporal Matthew McCully, 25, was killed by a roadside bomb on Friday in the Zhari district of Kandahar province.

In an interview with The Canadian Press in Toronto, Mr. Layton said his heart goes out to the family and friends of the fallen soldier, but stressed the need for a continued debate about the mission in Afghanistan.

”Our soldiers will risk their lives, according to what we request them to do. We saw yesterday the profound reality of that commitment,” he said.

Mr. Layton said his party is concerned about what he calls an “aggressive” counter-insurgency campaign being waged by Canadian forces.

Cpl. McCully was participating in Operation Hoover, a major anti-Taliban offensive, alongside Afghan and Portuguese troops when he stepped on an anti-tank mine that instantly killed him.

On Saturday, eight members of Cpl. McCully's squadron carried his flag-draped coffin into a Hercules aircraft that would take him home to Ontario.

It was the first Canadian death since mid-April, when eight soldiers were killed by a massive roadside bomb.

Mr. Layton said it is “distressing” that the Prime Minister Stephen Harper has opened the door to a prolonged mission in Afghanistan, where 55 Canadian soldiers have been killed since 2002.

In a surprise visit to Afghanistan last week, Mr. Harper told troops it would be wrong to guarantee a pull-out date in advance.

“You know that your work is not complete,” Mr. Harper told the assembled troops. “You know that we can't just put down our weapons and hope for peace.”

The NDP has called for an immediate withdrawal, while the Liberals want Canada to pull its troops when the current mission expires in 2009.

Citing the rising costs – both human and financial – Mr. Layton said multibillion-dollar purchases of tanks and helicopters could have been avoided if the military was not engaged in a “search and destroy mission.”

”I think many Canadians are asking themselves whether Mr. Harper hasn't lost track of the priorities of Canadians,” said Mr. Layton.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...

”I think many Canadians are asking themselves whether Mr. Harper hasn't lost track of the priorities of Canadians,” said Mr. Layton.

My thesis remains that Prime Minister Harper has not "lost track of the priorities of Canadians", he understands them; he is trying to change them.

He understands that a debate would be a pointless exercise because Canadians have a mythology about peace etc which is impervious to reason.  Better, I think he thinks  to (very quietly) present Canadians with a fait accompli: discovering that our voice does mean something, for the first time in nearly 40 years; a newfound pride in Canada's leadership role in the big leagues of international problems; and an appreciation of the fact that leadership has a price but that tough, disciplined professional soldiers are willing to pay that price and that young Canadians are eager to join that band.

There is no point in debating with Layton or the Parliamentary Press Gallery or the commentariat or any others in the 'chattering classes.'  Gen. Hillier has publicized the government's plan - no one can accuse them of keeping it a big secret.  Now it is time to talk less and act more.

 

[observor 69]

OK now I finally see the light ! It's a package deal. Foreign policy, defence policy, Canada's place on the international stage;  boy that definitely didn't come from "The New Government" caucus.

And where does poor Peter McKay fit in here! 

Sounds like any young person joining this hoped for new military has a bright career.

 

[KevinB]

I want to know what a "non" agressive COIN operation would do?

Besides pushing Burkha's back on to women in a lot of areas, and criplling both the Afghan gov't and their fledgling security services

 

[GAP]

I want to know what a "non" agressive COIN operation would do?

Besides pushing Burkha's back on to women in a lot of areas, and criplling both the Afghan gov't and their fledgling security services

That might be a whole article in of itself....interesting take......maybe it's about time we painted a picture of Jacko's world...

 

[MarkOttawa]

Sen. Colin Kenny makes some good points but glosses political reality too readily and is rather overly nasty to the PM.  Although he is a Liberal he usually tries to make his case in a less partisan fashion.  Pity he's taking this approach (Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act).

Stephen Harper is a toy soldier
Our gung-ho PM talks a good game on the military, but he is quietly selling out its future
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=3727c5ca-eff8-4c52-88b2-2a4cffdc5d52

George Bush Sr. once muttered ruefully about "the vision thing." He was annoyed because his critics complained that he didn't have a grand sense of what was coming over the horizon, and what America should do to prepare for it.

Why they singled out poor George is beyond me. It's difficult to find any politician with vision these days. The problem with vision is that it's so darned long-term - no quick payoff. Governments have become like many large companies that have quit investing in their future because the CEO's survival depends on keeping the stock price rising. Today's investors are looking for quick rewards.

So, of course, are most politicians. Their rewards are called votes. The politicians know they're unlikely to be around a decade or two down the road, so they put the public's money into programs and projects that will please voters at the next election. Let the future be damned - lay on the bread and circuses...

In recent years, I have attempting to sound another wakeup call, with only a modicum of success. I and my colleagues who sit on the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence have been trying to get Canadians to recognize that it is extremely difficult for a country without a capable military capacity to insure itself against physical disaster while playing a constructive role in the world

That isn't a very catchy message for many Canadians. They have seen their neighbours to the south getting involved in some extremely questionable military adventures, so there is a sense that de-emphasizing the military must be a better way to go. It is, if you get lucky and don't need to defend yourself. It is, if you're selfish and don't care to recognize that creating a more just and stable world can't be accomplished with kind thoughts alone.

The current federal government is taking a sly approach to military spending. It has announced just enough equipment purchases over the past year to create the illusion that it is determined to resuscitate Canada's military capacity, without committing nearly enough money to make that promise come true.

In one breathtaking week last summer, the government designated money for trucks, helicopters, transport planes and replenishment ships. A few weeks ago, it purchased tanks for Afghanistan.

These all constitute reasonable purchases, and - for those not paying attention - they help create an image of a no-nonsense government that believes that military strength is essential to sovereignty. Not like those creepy Liberals, who let Canada's defences run down in their drive to shrivel the national debt.

Well, at least those Liberal governments were honest - they simply didn't attach that big a priority to the military. This government, on the other hand, is hypocritical. It pretends to be strengthening our defences, but what it is really doing is buying just enough equipment to fill the most alarming holes and to get Canada through its commitment in Afghanistan [emphasis added].

Meanwhile, that Defence Capabilities Plan that this government insisted the Department of Defence come up with to outline Canada's military needs for the next quarter-century seems to have gone into hiding. It was supposed to be forthcoming last spring, then last fall, but if it exists, it's being hidden away somewhere.

Why? Because if an honest plan were brought forward, it would demonstrate clearly that the government is going to have to spend many billions more on defence than its plans call for now. Otherwise the Canadian Forces are going to deteriorate once again. There will be huge holes in the navy, the air force, and in the army as well.

The government doesn't want Canadians to know that those holes will be there if it doesn't cough up a lot more money. And it doesn't want to agree to cough up the money - at least not unless it has a majority government, which might not be in the cards for many years to come, if ever. Agreeing to spend the money would be the visionary thing to do, but the government already bought that constituency's votes last summer, so best not overdo it and alienate the pacifists.

It's quite an act - the prime minister angrily denounces anyone he deems to be undermining the efforts of our troops in Afghanistan, while he quietly picks the pockets of Canada's future military to pay for the Afghanistan mission. Yes, he should be pumping money into that mission - he has committed to it. But he should not use his mounting expenses there to leave tomorrow's Canadians without the armed forces they will need.

Canada will not be able to play a responsible role in defending itself or advancing our interests around the world without a reasonably muscular military. That's not me, a senator, playing soldier. That's surviving in a world in which some countries and some movements won't listen to reason.

Even today, Canadians are already missing something big militarily. It's called vision.

Colin Kenny, a Liberal senator, is chairman of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.

kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca

Mark
Ottawa