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

[zipperhead_cop]

It would be nice if the government we were backing resembled something more than a sociopathic Grade 2 class that is trying to steal all of the cookies from the kindergarten classes.  Trying to tell average Afghans that we are "working on behalf of the legitimate government of Afghanistan" rings pretty hollow.  They know what is going on and we end up looking like we are just protecting thugs and criminals.  They also know we are trying to help them but they look at us like we are half wits since we do the same things over and over.
However, the Taliban are even worse and IMO are at this point just a different kind of organized crime.  Sadly, in our big race to throw money at problems to make them go away we are forgetting that when people don't have to work for something they tend not to value it.  If this adventure is going to work somebody needs to start paying some serious attention to governance.  (I caveat my comments to the Kandahar Province)
But it wont be Canada since we;re in GTFO mode. 

 

[helpup]

Did anyone catch the CBC national report last night that did a piece on the cost of it. Using utilizing a few of the grieving families who lost children over there as a voice against the mission?  I am not trying to suggest that the families views are wrong or they don't have a right to feel that way.  I however take issue with the way the CBC presented it.  I don't have a hate on for the CBC but for a "National" news program to be so blatant in its content and allow factual errors and opinions to be expressed in such a way that suggests that all the parents hold these views and it is only the military who holds a counter view is very frustrating.  I am not supprised by the type of reporting just needing to vent

 

[OldSolduer]

Did anyone catch the CBC national report last night that did a piece on the cost of it. Using utilizing a few of the grieving families who lost children over there as a voice against the mission?  I am not trying to suggest that the families views are wrong or they don't have a right to feel that way.  I however take issue with the way the CBC presented it.  I don't have a hate on for the CBC but for a "National" news program to be so blatant in its content and allow factual errors and opinions to be expressed in such a way that suggests that all the parents hold these views and it is only the military who holds a counter view is very frustrating.  I am not supprised by the type of reporting just needing to vent

CBC is not the only guilty party. Marc Leger's mother was on and Kevin Newman fromGlobal specifically asked her opinion.

I told reporters there are no questions about the mission, or I'd shut them down.

 

[helpup]

I understand Marc's mothers grief, and again she has more then earned her right for her view, but it says something about the perception of Canadians who thought that we were just " peacekeepers".  They wrapped themselves in that word and forgot that we are soldiers first. Peacekeeping was just a mission we could do.  And we lost troops in them as well.  I cant recall her name but the one who wrote the book and started to express concerns about the military taking over any families lives to do it only for the protection of the army's views and to control the family... Ouch that one hurt as well. The wife and I looked at each other and went "WHAT!!"

OS my biggest issue outside of yes the families have earned the right to any view they have is......... Where is the balance. I don't even expect it to be proportional, but at least make it even handed and allow the viewers to make up their own mind.

 

[Jed]

I saw the program and I thought that LGen Jeffries Ret'd did a pretty good job fielding some very sensitive issues and that the CBC reported his comments fairly.

 

[helpup]

I saw the program and I thought that LGen Jeffries Ret'd did a pretty good job fielding some very sensitive issues and that the CBC reported his comments fairly.

Your right he did but the whole layout of the show was ex Gen who of course would support it against those who have really lost someone over there.  Out of 100 immediate families, they showed 3 who's views are well known, and earned.  no attempt at getting the rest of the families on there or mentioning that they tried but were turned down. 

 

[OldSolduer]

Your right he did but the whole layout of the show was ex Gen who of course would support it against those who have really lost someone over there.  Out of 100 immediate families, they showed 3 who's views are well known, and earned.  no attempt at getting the rest of the families on there or mentioning that they tried but were turned down. 

Well no one asked me, but then again I won't offer an opinion to the media, as per the guidelines.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail is Christie Blatchford’s report on just one of the overpasses – but a special one:

--------------------​

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081209.wblatchford09/BNStory/National/home

The beauty and the light in the darkness of loss
On a cold day, hundreds squeeze onto a Highway of Heroes overpass as casualties No. 98, 99 and 100 come home

CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
December 9, 2008 at 4:45 AM EST

TORONTO — Before the dozen police cars cleared the Don Valley Parkway and stilled a busy expressway into utter silence, before the snake of white lights signalled the arrival of the long funeral cortège, before we threw our rose petals onto the three black cars below, Helen Zoubaniotis, drinking deeply of it all, sighed and said, "What a wonderful world we have. There is beauty everywhere."

We were on the sidewalk of the Wynford Drive overpass, the side that looks north onto the southbound lanes of the parkway. Around us were the medium-sized office buildings of this part of Don Mills, signs advertising McDonald's and Home Depot, and bigger residential towers under construction.

If it was hardly a traditional picture of loveliness, Ms. Zoubaniotis was nonetheless right. There is beauty everywhere, and so there was even here, in the early evening dark of an early winter's night.

Ms. Zoubaniotis was there with her two kids. The teenage daughter held a Greek flag. They are friends of the family of Private Demetrios Diplaros, one of three Canadian soldiers who were casualties No. 98, 99 and 100 and who came home yesterday.

Pte. Diplaros, 25, Corporal Mark Robert McLaren, just 23, and Warrant Officer Robert John Wilson, 27, were killed last Friday when their armoured vehicle rolled over an enormous improvised explosive device while travelling along a lethal stretch of highway that runs west from Kandahar city.

As Ms. Zoubaniotis said, "We were scared for him, but we were proud of him too. This is something he wanted to do. To die for your country, I think, is a great honour."

Pte. Diplaros had roots in the Peloponnese region, which is in the south of Greece and was home in ancient times to Sparta, but he was a fighting son of Canada and a Toronto boy.

The Wynford overpass, centrally located, was where Pte. Diplaros's namesake uncle Demetrios and aunt Thena Moumos, clutching a framed picture of the young man in uniform to her heart, their son Nick and other relatives came. Nick's brother Gus was travelling with the rest of the sprawling family in the funeral procession, and Nick would call him to find out where along the Highway of Heroes the cortège was. It was here, too, that Linda Hamman, another relative, arrived with small, brown-paper bags filled with the rose petals.

But the family wasn't alone. The crowd began gathering about two hours before the cortège came into sight and was at its biggest about 175 strong, which is a lot of people squeezed onto a narrow sidewalk.

Making its 10th appearance at this overpass was a huge Canadian flag that Marilyn Lawson, a member of Branch 10 of the Royal Canadian Legion, bought in 2002. Ms. Lawson had it in place early, attached to the hand rail so that it was right over the lane where she knew the cortège would travel. Harvey Horlock, with his big Support the Troops flag, was also in position early; Mr. Horlock served for almost 15 years with the 2nd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, brother unit to the RCR's 1st Battalion, the regiment of the dead soldiers.

Shelley Goodman was one of the first to arrive. A retired Toronto elementary school teacher, she had never before come to the overpass or any other. But she felt compelled this time, not because of the 100th milestone, but because two of her fellow retired teachers have young men in Afghanistan serving on this rotation - one a son, the other a son-in-law. "I'm just astounded at the immensity of it," Ms. Goodman said, then, echoing Ms. Zoubaniotis's remark, "and the gorgeousness."

Long before the cortège was even close, we began to notice that below us, as motorists caught a glimpse of all of us, standing with the Greek and Canadian flags flying and stamping our feet in the cold, they would flash their lights and honk their horns, as if to say they were with us in spirit.

Behind me, to the steady beep-beep-beep of the horns below and over the hum of the big Toronto Emergency Medical Services bus that was now parked on the road, I could hear Ms. Zoubaniotis talking with other family friends in Greek; naturally, being a good Canadian, she apologized for this. Nick Moumos, who is 33, talked about his little cousin with affection, and he and Ms. Zoubaniotis tried to figure out whether it was Centennial College where Pte. Diplaros and his brother Gus had studied auto mechanics together for a while.

Mr. Horlock kept me up to speed about the number of Branch 10 members who were present (about 10, he figured); Ms. Lawson remembered how she took the big flag to Canadian Forces Base Trenton last summer for a big support-the-troops rally and reminisced about growing up in nearby Flemington Park. Mr. and Mrs. Moumos were brought over to the spot above the southbound lanes; by now, she had stopped crying.

It was an oddly congenial, weirdly Canadian crowd.

A little after 5 p.m., Nick phoned Gus (again) and learned the procession was in the Whitby area, just east of Toronto. By 5:25, it was at Kennedy Road; 10 minutes later, we began to see the police cars with their flashing lights tearing down the parkway.

I noticed for the first time that there now was no regular southbound traffic, and that the expressway was completely empty. There were more police cars, and then at about 5:40, Ms. Goodman spotted the first of the lights just south of York Mills Road.

The cortège had left the Highway of Heroes and was coming to us.

Someone shouted, "Get your flowers ready!", and then the procession - three funeral cars and various long black limousines - was below us.

In seconds it was gone. On the road below, rose petals covered the ground. Mrs. Moumos thanked us for coming.

Driving home, I heard CFRB radio show host Bill Carroll, who was stationed at the coroner's office in downtown Toronto, where all soldiers' bodies are taken for autopsy, saying, wonderment in his voice, that some of the dead soldiers' family members had rolled down the windows of the hearses to acknowledge the people who were waiting there.

I was reminded of what Michael Herr wrote in his wonderful book about the Vietnam War, Dispatches, how whenever a reporter left the troops (to safety of course, leaving the soldiers behind in some godforsaken, dangerous place), the guys would find a way to thank him for having come, wish him luck. "And what could you say to that?" Mr. Herr asked. What indeed.

--------------------​

I have nothing to add, except to say that those famous ordinary Canadians ‘get it’ even when the elites, and the ‘chattering classes’ and the commentariat cannot understand.

 

[OldSolduer]

As I stated in another post, we are all CANADIANS. We are not Eastern Canadians, Western Canadians, Atlantic Canadians or West Coast Canadians. We are not French or English Canadians, or any kind of hyphenated Canadian. We are CANADIANS.

 

[MarkOttawa]

A most depressing, and revealing, aspect of our Afghan involvement is the way it has become framed. It is presented, by both politicians and the major media, in essentially two ways:

1) What's the political spin? What party points are being won or lost?

2) Is the military mission a failure--or succeeding--at this moment? When should Canada bug out?

How puerile can a country get? These are the questions that should be considered:

1) What are Canada's national interests that justify a major effort, military and development, in Afstan?

2) Is there a realistic chance that an ongoing and increased international commitment, military and otherwise, will eventually result in a situation favourable to our national interests?

3) If the answer to 2) is yes, what could be the extent of Canada's ongoing efforts, military and otherwise, taking into account this country's capabilities and resources?

4) Is Canadian public opinion open to a continuing military mission in Afstan after 2011, perhaps a changed one?

(See the end of this post:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/11/eight-griffons-to-afstan.html )

5) What will be the consequences, if we effectively end our military mission in 2011, on: a) Afghanistan; b) the international military effort; c) Canada's foreign relations; and, d) Canadians' views, and those of our politicians especially, about our future military role abroad?

Responses to those five points invited.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here are my answers.

1. Minimal, beyond:

a. supporting our friends and allies, and

b. protecting ourselves by trying to prevent Afghanistan from, once again, being used as a base from which terrorists can launch attacks on our friends and us.

2. Yes, but only slightly better than 50/50 in the near to mid term.

3. About 5% of the total allied effort is appropriate. That means our 2,500+ person commitment is about right given that NATO has 50,000+ troops in Afghanistan.

4. Yes, probably.

5. Consequences:

a. minimal;

b. somewhat damaging;

c. negative, at least in the near to mid term, unless/until we pick up a heavy load in an even more difficult mission – which will likely be the case; and

d. minimal – both have very, very short attention spans and their focus is 99.975% domestic.



Edit:spelling/typo

 

[The Bread Guy]

4) Is Canadian public opinion open to a continuing military mission in Afstan after 2011, perhaps a changed one?

(See the end of this post:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/11/eight-griffons-to-afstan.html )

Given the range of wording to this point, combined with the latest set of tea leaves to divine...

....Canada's two leading cabinet ministers on Afghanistan, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and Defence Minister Peter MacKay, held firm against the calls to extend the mission.

Spokespeople for both ministers responded with an identical statement that said: "Secretary Gates has always been gracious about Canada's role in the UN-mandated mission. The minister and the government have been very clear that Parliament has decided that our mission there ends in 2011."

Asked whether he saw Gates's comments as a sign the new U.S. administration of Barack Obama will push Canada to remain in Kandahar beyond 2011, MacKay's spokesman Dan Dugas said: "I've had no indication they will."....

...not to mention the hurley-burley of the Coalition Polka now under way, to me, it'll be interesting to see what the "new, improved" Canadian presence will look like.

 

[MarkOttawa]

E.R. Campbell: Thanks for answers I'd generally agree with .  But:

c. negative, at least in the near to mid term, unless/until we puck up a heavy load in an even more difficult mission – which will likely be the case...

When bitten?  Especially politically?

d. minimal – both have very, very short attention spans and their focus is 99.975% domestic.

I think the domestic focus will outweigh any interest in, or support for, foreign adventures with casualties that might entail any political risk.

As an aside, if the USMC go into Afstan large, some new lines:

"From the halls of Montezuma
To the sands of Kandahar
We will fight our nation's battles
Be they near or be they far..."

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

A couple of months ago I imagined, here how we might pick up a heavier burden.

I suspect we will drift into a tougher, bloodier mission precisely because most Canadians, including most Canadian politicians, know little and care less about foreign policy, security, defence and military deployments. When enough people are sufficiently agitated by too much horror on their TV screens they'll demand that "someone must do something" and the CF will find itself back in combat, this time in Africa - for another ten or fifteen years or so.


Edit:typo - apologies, bad headache today makes proofing harder than normal for me

 

[Old Sweat]

Indeed, Edward, indeed. It is my opinion that there will be conditions attached to our withdrawal from Afghanistan, and they wont be ones we attached. We will be expected forced to take on a new operation, or will be could be repercussions. There are more than enough places around the world that make the 'stan look pacific. The chattering classes and the public at large, however, will be smugly satisfied that we finally are doing something on the side of the angels.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I suspect we will drift into a tougher, bloodier mission precisely because most Canadians, including most Canadian politicians, know little and care less about foreign policy, security, defence and military deployments. When enough people are sufficiently agitated by too much horror on their TV screens they's demand that "someone must do something" and the CF will find itself back in combat, this time in Africa - for another ten or fifteen years or so.

Given how ugly things are in that part of the world, I fear I have to agree with you (but optimistic about the timeline) - be careful what you wish for, anyone supporting a Darfur intervention instead of staying in Afghanistan....

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Maybe for the next one instead of just fighting a war we'll look at winning a war. 
But then again, you couldn't hope to see peace in Darfur unless there is a Greenbeans there first. 
Peace in our time through mango smoothies! 

 

[Old Sweat]

Edward,

And this was part of your next post on that thread:

If, and it is a HUGE IF the market found its ‘bottom’ last week then, aside from one more rough year (2009), this will not be a bad time to govern Canada and Dion and Layton might want to form a coalition. But, as I have mentioned before, and as Prof. Gibbins notes, while it is fair to for the Liberals and NDP to join with the Bloc to defeat the government, I don’t think Canadians will support any BQ participation in a government. Still, the Liberals and NDP might be able to govern for a while with tacit BQ support – until the Bloc’s demands become too much, as they certainly will.

Most likely, however, the Liberals are only gong to get 25-27% support and Dion will be on his way out and Layton will not want to form a coalition with a party in transition and the Liberals will not want to topple Harper until they have a new leader – by which time things may be looking better and parliament will have been in session long enough for Harper to demand that the GG give him another election.

You got it about three quarters right, which is better than the punditry has been doing.

Mods: Sorry for the hijack, but it was in a good cause.

 

[Kirkhill]

Continuing the Hijack and concurring on Edward's prognostications.

I think what this "crisis" has done is cemented a developing "convention".  What Canadians expect when they cast their vote is that they are voting for a package of member, party, platform, leader.  They are comfortable with most votes wins the seat, most seats wins the government.

Beyond that, if the government falls they expect a say in forming the next government - They want to be able to punish those that made them go back to the polls or that are governing badly and reward those they deem worthy.

I don't think they will ever again tolerate a post-facto parliamentary coalition, nor will they expect the GG to do anything more than stick to clearly defined tramlines.

I believe that Harper will still be in power in 2011.

 

[TCBF]

... I believe that Harper will still be in power in 2011.

- My prediction for an answer that will be given during a Question Period in the future:

" ... But, let us be clear, Madame Speaker, that if we decline the invitation of our Afghan allies to stay the course in Afghanistan, and we in fact spend hundreds of millions of dollars dis-engaging from the mission, there will be no funds available in the defence budget to launch into Africa, and - in any case - no fresh troops to carry out any African mission."