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

[McG]

. . . and the retort.

Harper slams Martin on Afghanistan mission comments
Allan Woods, CanWest News Service
Published: Wednesday, September 27, 2006

BUCHAREST - It is irresponsible for former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin to criticize Canada's military mission in Afghanistan when he was the one who originally sent troops to the country and approved a decision to place soldiers in the country's most dangerous region in the south, said Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The Conservative prime minister was responding to a published interview in which Martin said that Canada's military efforts have gone off track and are now disproportionately focused on combat fighting, not reconstruction and aid.

"We are doing the defence," Martin told the Toronto Star newspaper. "But are we doing the amount of reconstruction, the amount of aid that I believe was part of the original mission? The answer unequivocally is that we're not. And I believe that we should."

Harper was asked about Martin's comments following a meeting in Bucharest with Romanian President Traian Basescu, where they also discussed the shared effort in Afghanistan where the two countries are involved in a NATO-led mission to support the Afghan government and eliminate the Taliban.

He said that the current mission in Kandahar, which lasts until 2007, is the same mission that the former Liberal government approved. Harper's Conservative government voted in May to extend Canada's stay in the country until 2009 after this mission ends.

The prime minister has spoken in the past about the need to bring security to the country, through force if necessary, before real aid and reconstruction can begin. But instead of repeating that explanation,

Harper lashed out at his predecessor saying that such a mindset illustrates why he was no longer fit to lead the country after just 18 months in office.

"When you make those kinds of decisions as a prime minister you have to be able to take responsibility for them and stick with them," Harper said. "The fact that Mr. Martin is unable to do that ... illustrates why he is no longer prime minister."

NATO defence minister are meeting in Slovenia starting Thursday where there are expected to be formal offers to send additional troops to Afghanistan. Leaders from the international defence organization have admitted that they underestimated the strength and organization of the Taliban, who are receiving supplies and reinforcements through the porous border with Pakistan.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor recently asked Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf for permission to station Canadian troops inside the Pakistan border to cut off that pipeline, but Canada received its answer Wednesday.

Musharraf told CBC television in an interview that the request has been denied, and that he took the request as a slight to his own forces.

"I would not like to challenge the Canada troops, but I can assure you our troops are more effective, and we have more experience of war, and this shows a lack of trust in Pakistan," he said.

He also dismissed the outcry by Canadian families and legislators over the controversial mission, saying that a country engaged in a major military effort such as Afghanistan should not be surprised by deaths. Besides, he said, Canadian losses are nothing compared to the deaths suffered by his own troops.

"You are talking to the president of a country which has suffered 500 casualties. So you suffered two dead, and there's a cry all around the place that there are coffins," he said in an interview with CBC. "Well, we've had 500 coffins."

If Canada is not prepared to suffer casualties in the fight against terrorism "then don't participate in any operation," he said.

Harper was asked about Musharraf's comments in Bucharest, but said he had not been briefed on what was said. However, the prime minister reiterated that Pakistan is an important ally in the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and that movements by the Taliban and its supporters through Pakistan is an issue "we are all aware of."

Thirty-six Canadian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan since the country joined the American-led war on terror in 2001. Fighting has been particularly intense this summer.

"When a soldier puts on a uniform and he joins the army, is this for fighting, or for peacekeeping?" asked Musharraf, who is also promoting a new autobiography. "When you get involved in places like Iraq or Lebanon or Afghanistan, yes indeed, you have to suffer casualties, and the nation must be prepared to suffer casualties."

 

[Cliffy433]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/27/harper-martin.html

Notice the headline sucks you in, thinking it will finally be an anti-Liberal piece, but then they only devote 4 paragraphs to the PM, and 5 to the anti-PM side... guess which paras read better?

Fair Dealings... Copyright Act... blah, blah, blah

Harper lashes out at Martin for criticizing Afghan mission

Prime Minister Stephen Harper slammed Paul Martin on Tuesday for saying there's too much military emphasis on the mission in Afghanistan.

Harper, in Romania for a francophone summit, rejected the criticism, saying the former prime minister approved the mission in Kandahar, a dangerous Taliban stronghold where 36 Canadian troops have been killed and wounded.

"When you make those kinds of decisions as a prime minister, you have to be able to take responsibility for them and stick with them," Harper said in Bucharest.

"The fact that Mr. Martin is unable to do that, in this and so many other cases, illustrates why he is no longer prime minister of our country."

In an interview with the Toronto Star, Martin said he doesn't back away "one iota" from his decision to send soldiers to Kandahar. But Martin said there should be more focus on reconstruction efforts.

"You can't win the military war if you can't win the hearts and minds of the people," Martin said.

He said that he approved what military planners refer to as the "3-D" approach to the mission: diplomacy, defence and development.

"We are doing the defence," Martin said. "In fact, we are doing the defence quite aggressively — and you can't do it passively.

"But are we doing the amount of reconstruction, the amount of aid that I believe was part of the original mission? The answer unequivocally is that we're not. And I believe that we should."

In spring 2006, Canada began a major role in the southern part of the country, with a battle group of more than 2,000 soldiers called Task Force Afghanistan, based around Kandahar.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Is anyone else getting tired of hearing our enlightened press come back from Afghanistan and say, "but if we just lined our troops up around one village, and make it all pretty and perfect, all of Afghanistan would change"?  If we fail to root out the Taliban, then that perfect little Canadian village we built would disappear in a nightmare of blood and fire the second those troops were withdrawn, as an object lesson of what daring to live outside the Talibans narrow interpretation of Islam.  To leave while the Taliban has the means to return, and before the Afghan government has the ability to not only defend its people, but administer them beyond the city limits of Kabul, is to doom those who have dared to try to rebuild that nation to watch it all go down into the dark a second time.  When we leave Afghanistan will be an Islamic republic, a third world nation with a low standard of living and struggling educational system.  The country will belong to the Afghan people, with the freedom to succeed or fail in their attempts to guide themselves towards a future of their own choosing.  This isn't a war to end all wars, Afghanistan is not ever going to be the garden spot of the middle east, and we will pay in blood and treasure for the task of rebuilding this nation.  It is a job that needs to be done, we are the nation that has sworn to do it, and if our soldiers think it worth the price they are paying, then the press and politicians can take a lesson from basic training and SHUT UP AND SOLDIER!

 

[SSampson]

I too (as we all are) am sick and tired of so many politicians using military involvement as a political issue. While we all must support freedom of expression, it seems that this has been traded off in the political foray for an eagerness to oppose whomever is in power.

While I certainly recognize that any Military involvement needs to be discussed as a matter of course, it is important that the government support our those in combat by recognizing that there is a need to have purpose for soldiers to do their job.

I did 5 years – 82 to 87 – and I would still be there if I didn’t have bolts and screws in my leg. During that time I personally remember getting both a wave or the finger from passing civilians. Then in ’95, long after I had departed, getting the BIG finger from Chretien as CAR was disbanded. (personally I think he should be incarcerated for his criminal activity with the sponsorship scandal, but that is another topic – I will desist). Despite this, however, I still believe that the job of a soldier is to defend their country and the individual rights IN said country. This unfortunately means listening to a lot of stuff we may disagree with from time to time.

I think one of the major problems with many governments, including our own, is that those in power have NO military experience. While this obviously could never be a requirement for political office, it wouldn’t hurt that when someone without experience is elected that they listen to the troops when making decisions. When I was in we had the now thankfully replaced 64 pattern webbing (CRAP), the Iltis was beginning to appear in small numbers and close to 8,000 MLVWs were brought in (I can still taste the exhaust fumes from the under-carriage exhaust, remember moving the heat shield to get off the spare, and constantly banging the damn mirror every time I opened the bloody door). We were also looking at alternatives to the C1 (which frankly I would still prefer to the C7, but I am SURE many would disagree). We also pay more for grenades now because we produce them in Canada despite a high failure rate. My point is that all of these decisions seem to be made WITHOUT consulting those who actually know anything. 

Canada SHOULD be involved militarily in Afghanistan. There are numerous reasons. It is a JUST cause. It increases the skills of our military. It helps evaluate our equipment in combat. While I personally would have been opposed to Iraq as this was always about greed and NOT about human rights (as a primary goal), we are NOT there, therefore it should not be used to predicate a reason for NOT being in Afghanistan
Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan and Afghanistan are all locations that Canadian Soldiers should be (or should have been). I believe in supporting human rights internationally, be it as peacekeepers OR peace makers. We have a LONG and proud tradition in this area and we are very capable in these areas. From Vimy and the Hindenburg line in WWI, to D-Day in WWII, we have proven our skills, commitment and reliability. In WWII we committed more troops per capita than any other country apart from USSR and Germany. (as for Somalia, had the CO and chain of command accepted responsibility – granted not culpability – for the actions of a few, and DEALT with the issue, CAR would still be here. So I blame BOTH the government and the involved 'Officers')

Anyway, I am rambling…

SUPPORT THE TROOPS – SUPPORT AFGHANISTAN AS A JUST CAUSE. Remember, we live in a society where freedom of speech is our responsibility, therefore it is ALSO our responsibility to tell Canada what WE think as current or ex military personnel (or supporters of our Military)

Another  couple of things… If you live in close to a family of a fallen soldier, or near one who  is injured and incapacitated, lend a hand !!! There is something that we can all do !! Even us old guys who are no longer able to serve in the field.

The Federal Government is also shutting down some reserve units across the country. While I only spent 1 year in the reserve, I spent 5 years as a Cadet that was attached to the reserve unit. Many people that went reg. also did this (in my time anyway). We need to help support these Units and prevent them from shutting down. Otherwise the military will be comprised of only those from Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver….

Cheers

Scott A. Sampson
BTW – Is it me, or do we all think that the American Air Force trains whilst hunting with Dick Cheney??

 

[pbi]

SSampson: I am also a big believer in free speech, even if it hurts. IMHO one of the key guardians of a real democracy is a free press, supported by the idea that everybody has the right to express themselves. In the military we will probably always have our differences with the media, but guess what: so will the police, Big Govt, Big Corporations, Big Churches, corrupt politicians, unions, and anybody else who attracts the searchlight of the media. If the right wing AND the left wing scream equally that the media are the dupes of the other side, then the media has probably got it about right. And, as far as I know (at least in Canada and the US...) both those groups carry on endlessly about the hated media that won't serve their ends.

As I have remarked before on these pages, I have seen our military come a very, very long way in its dealings with the media, both in how we approach them and in how they treat us. Do they eat out of our hand? No, but wake up and smell the printing ink: that isn't their job. What I fear is that, under the pressure of OPSEC, ou under the concerns of a govt that does not enjoy a honeymoon with the Ottawa press gallery, we in the CF will retreat to the backward approach we had in the 1970's: don't talk to the media. In a society and world like ours, information is both a tool and a weapon (guess what: it always has been...) and if we do not win the info fight, somebody else will. It is as much a part of the joint effort as "3D plus C" or launching an Op MEDUSA. I hope we don't forget that.

The Federal Government is also shutting down some reserve units across the country

Really? What units are these? The trend in the Army Reserve in the last four years has been to expand into new locations, develop new capabilities and increase recruiting. I would be interested to know what units have been closed.

BTW – Is it me, or do we all think that the American Air Force trains whilst hunting with Dick Cheney??

Before we slag the US Air Force(and US Army aviation), remember that they fly hundreds of very successful missions in support of our troops on the ground. I have heard wounded Canadian soldiers, or soldiers involved in the recent fratricide strike, speak about the trust they place in the US pilots and how much they depend on them for success. Those US pilots set out each day to do the best they can: they don't set out to kill their fellow soldiers.  If you served in the army, you know that the battlespace is a very confused, frightening and ever-changing place. A ground attack pilot has a few seconds to make a decision to release on target, and he must not risk being hit by MANPADS or ground fire. I think that if some of us had to go through the same experience, we might not be so quick to judge our comrades in the air.

Cheers

 

[Infanteer]

The OC of the Company involved personally said that he felt for the poor guy who hit our own guys (I do as well) and said that it was part of accepting the awesome CAS that they deliver.  I didn't see any ill feelings about what is, as PBI pointed out, part of the fog and confusion of the battlefield.

Hopefully that's all that needs to be said.

 

[McG]

Reproduced from cbc.ca under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Peacekeeping has 'failed' , says Dallaire
CBC News: Thursday, September 28, 2006 | 12:01 PM ET

Senator Romeo Dallaire, the retired Canadian general who led the ill-fated United Nations force during the genocide in Rwanda, says the concept of peacekeeping has disappeared in this new era of warfare.

"The Canadian army hasn't been in peacekeeping for the last 15 years," said Dallaire, who spoke at the University of Saskatchewan Wednesday, said the Saskatoon StarPhoenix.

...

Warfare is no longer country against country, he said during the lecture, which was sponsored by the university's law faculty.

Wars now deal with tribalism, ethnicity and economics, said Dallaire.

...

He also offered support for the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, saying the country must follow through with its commitment and accept that there will be casualties.

 

[a_majoor]

Another slap for the MSM; they are very quick to jump on the deaths and injuries of our soldiers; what about the reasons that they are there?

http://uncommontruths.blogspot.com/2006/10/i-told-you-so.html

Thursday, October 05, 2006
I Told You So
The Canadian soldiers who were killed two days ago were on guard duty, protecting workers who were constructing a new road.

Here's a flashback (http://uncommontruths.blogspot.com/2006/09/layton-fiddles-while-afghanistan-burns.html) to a post I wrote in September regarding the difficulties of building something while being shot at.

 

[MarkOttawa]

From the front page of the Ottawa Citizen--perhaps some of our Opposition politicians may read this:

Canada right to keep troops in Afghanistan
UN peacekeeping chief
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=c04d64c5-15cb-434b-9f17-4c75cbf58d82

The chief of United Nations peacekeeping operations yesterday praised Canada for deploying a sizable force to Afghanistan, saying the entire NATO deployment is providing "very important" help to the world body's work in that country.

Making the comments during a briefing on the UN's own burgeoning peacekeeping commitments around the world, Jean-Marie Guehenno effectively endorsed the arguments Prime Minister Stephen Harper made in his recent UN address on why Canada had intervened in Afghanistan.

"Canada helps us through the mission in Afghanistan, and we think it is very important that NATO is a solid and powerful force (there)," Mr. Guehenno said. "It is an essential element if one wants to maintain the credibility of the political process in Afghanistan. It is essential to have a robust NATO in Afghanistan."

Among the criticisms in Canada of the deployment to Afghanistan have been calls for Canadian troops to be used in more traditional peacekeeping roles around the world.

But Mr. Guehenno, who called the briefing to highlight how the UN is facing one of the biggest surges in its global peacekeeping commitments in a decade, welcomed Canada's decision to add tanks [my emphasis] and about 200 more troops to the 2,300-strong Canadian contingent. He also welcomed other just-announced increases to the NATO force, which is currently 20,000 strong.

"We are very happy to see the reinforcement," he said. "Canada has been a part of that, and we are grateful."..

Mark
Ottawa

 

[vonGarvin]

Where is Mr. Layton et al now?  How will they spin this one to re-direct into Darfur?  I think they (the NDP) don't realise that Canada cannot contribute to EVERY UN mission ongoing, and that by being hip deep in one actually frees up other members of the UN to go to other places (eg: Darfur)\

As an aside, I watched Question Period the other night.  An honourable member was lambasting why we were still in Afghanistan, it's so brutal, not winnable, etc, but then, in the same breath, asked why we weren't going to Darfur to protect the innocent.  I simply shouted "WTF" at the television.  My wife understood me, I woke my 9 year old, and the dog left the room...

 

[Haggis]

VG:

You shouldn't have scared the dog.  The NDP support PETA.

 

[Shadowolf]

If Mr. Harper said that it will be a nice day tomorrow, Mr. Layton would reply that these nice days are causing drought therefore social assistance should be sent to the farmers.  'Think of the starving children, Mr. Prime Minister'. 

Its good to see some in the UN bureaucracy are appreciative of something other than failed UN peacekeeping missions.

 

[Sub_Guy]

This is what grinds my gears.....  :rage:

Now if this story had said the opposite it would be all over the national media, but it praises the mission so it is a shit stain in the daily news.  The political bantering that occurs in this country drives me up the fucking wall.  Living in BC isn't doing anything for my blood pressure, as most in this province are NDP crazy, it is getting so bad that some people I work with say the same crap that LAYTON shoots out of his trap.  I just don't get any of it.  :rage:

I don't know how you can get up in the morning and put on the uniform and be so out of touch with what our military is doing and WHY we are doing it!!!  :rage:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

People hear what they want to hear and the media publishes what they want the people to want.

 

[Kirkhill]

And the government can't get the message out because it comes from the government and is discounted as unreportable propaganda.

If the government goes on the road to sell the message it is morally bankrupt and engaging in promoting partisan political ends to win the next election.

Other voices are obviously stooges of George Bush, party hacks and idiots.

I luv democracy in action.

 

[vonGarvin]

VG:

You shouldn't have scared the dog.  The NDP support PETA.

PETA?  People Eating Tasty Animals? 

 

[Boxkicker]

I know that we are a democracy and all and even the NDP is allowed to have an opinion. But has anyone else considered breaking QR&O's to speak up and offer MR. Layton a cup of shut the F*** up as well. I do know that I would love to, is there anything we can do to let the chain of command allow us to speak publically. Maybe that will just end all of his crap, if the public hears how the soldiers of this country support this mission.

 

[Boxkicker]

I just emailed the post from the Ruxted group along with this note.



  Mr. Layton I have sent several message’s to your constituency office with NO reply. I feel that you should know that we the soldiers of this country support the current mission in Afghanistan, it is a mission that we can be proud of un-like any UN missions. In my and many of my friend’s opinions the comments you make are a complete morale breaker. To hear you say that we are peacekeepers is actually insulting to a great many of us and find completely derogatory, we are soldiers proud professionals. No matter what branch of the service Army, Navy of Air Force this is a mission that we can be proud of.

 

[Edward Campbell]

At the risk of getting back on topic  ;D : http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/24-The-Afghanistan-Debate.html

This is from today’s Ottawa Citizen.  It is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=4fedce12-9a14-4a5c-aba6-e70002a38817&k=63439

Tories reignite support for war in Afghanistan
57% now support combat operations, but many doubt mission is succeeding

Andrew Mayeda

The Ottawa Citizen

Friday, October 06, 2006

Public backing for the war in Afghanistan has surged after an aggressive campaign by the Conservative government to build support for the mission, but most Canadians want the troops to come home when the country's military commitment ends in 2009, according to a new poll.

The poll was conducted between Sept. 26 and 28 by Ipsos Reid for CanWest News Service and Global National.

It shows 57 per cent of Canadians support the use of troops in combat operations in Afghanistan.

That represents a six-percentage-point rise from early September, and a 10-point rise from late July, when support appears to have bottomed out for the year.

The surge followed a concerted effort by the Tories to build support for the Afghanistan mission.

The push began on Sept. 21 with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's first speech at the United Nations, where he stressed the importance of the mission to the global war on terrorism.

The next day, Afghan President Hamid Karzai delivered an impassioned plea for Canada's continued military involvement in his war-torn country, praising the Canadian soldiers who have died as the "greatest of their generation."

The campaign was capped by a rally on Parliament Hill in which thousands of people dressed in red as a show of support for the troops. At the rally, Harper played to Canadians' pride in their military history, boasting: "We don't start fights, but we finish them."

Ipsos Reid senior vice-president John Wright noted that the surge in support came after four Canadian soldiers were killed by a suicide bomber while the troops were mingling with Afghan civilians. But he said Mr. Karzai's speech in Ottawa refocused public attention on the reconstruction dimension of the mission.

"It underscored that there is another side to this," Mr. Wright said.

"Whenever that side can be presented, and whenever there is a third party from the theatre of operations who says why it is important, then support goes up," Mr. Wright said.

But it remains to be seen whether public support for the mission will remain firm as the death toll in Afghanistan continues to rise.

Since the poll was conducted, three Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan, bringing the military death toll to 39 since 2002.

Indeed, the Ipsos Reid poll suggests Canadians' support for the war has an expiry date.

Fifty-one per cent of respondents believe the troops should exit Afghanistan in 2009, when Canada's military commitment ends, regardless of the level of success achieved.

As part of a NATO-led mission, Canada commands a multinational military force in the south of the country, around Kandahar.

A total of 44 per cent believe Canada should stay the course and "finish the job," even if that means staying beyond 2009.

The survey also gauged Canadians' opinions about the moral and strategic justifications for the war. The results suggest many of the arguments made by the Conservative government are hitting home with the public.

For example, 80 per cent of respondents believe troops are performing a "vital humanitarian mission" in Afghanistan, while 58 per cent feel the war is winning "well-deserved respect among Americans and the Bush administration."

But the poll also reveals significant public doubt about the success of the mission. Only 41 per cent believe that troops are winning the battle against Taliban forces, despite the military's recent declaration of victory in a large-scale offensive called Operation Medusa.

"It's a realistic response," Mr. Wright said of poll respondents. "The question is when are we winning and what will a win look like? We're not winning yet. There are still firefights and there are still a lot of casualties."

And the survey shows substantial differences in support between regions.

Backing for the mission was highest in Atlantic Canada and Saskatchewan and Manitoba at 67 per cent.

Support was lowest in Quebec, at 45 per cent. In the other provinces support for the war in Afghanistan stood at 66 per cent in Alberta, 59 per cent in Ontario and 56 per cent in B.C.

Sixty-three per cent of men support the mission, while only 51 per cent of woman support the war.

Ipsos Reid interviewed 1,009 adult Canadians by phone to complete the poll, which is considered accurate within plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2006​

There are a few worrisome points:

• The so-called expiry date in 2009.  People like LGen Leslie have been warning that this might be a 20 years mission.  Our own Ruxted Group suggest it is the work of generations – as long as many peacekeeping missions;

• The low percentage (≥40) who believe the mission will not succeed.  That may mean that some Canadians, maybe quite a few, believe we should stay the course even as they believe we will fail; and

• The low levels of support in Québec (45%) and amongst women (51%).

 

[Kirkhill]

"It's a realistic response," Mr. Wright said of poll respondents. "The question is when are we winning and what will a win look like? We're not winning yet. There are still firefights and there are still a lot of casualties."

The presence of firefights and casualties does not necessarily indicate "We're not winning yet" damye.  Would Mr. Wright say that the loss of Police Officers on duty, mothers murdering babies and insurrection in Caledonia indicate that we are not yet winning the domestic "War on Barbarism" (copyright Edward Campbell 2006) here in Canada?  Bollocks.

On the plus side, even the worrisome stats concerning women and Quebecers are likely to be considered as brilliant news by the Conservatives.  If they could have scored 51% of the women and 45% of the Quebecers in the last election they would have had a massive majority.....

At very least they are demonstrating that it is possible to remove that card from the hands of the opposition - hence, I suspect, the shift of the opposition to a focus on the environment.  But speculation on that will drag this back off topic after Edward just put us back on.