Canadian Public Opinion Polls on Afghanistan

[paracowboy]

Hey, as long as you're referring to healthy skepticism and not a blind comitment to ignorance, we're on the same page.

I am a troglodyte, not a Luddite. I am incapable of learning, I am not averse to it.

You sure had me fooled when you asked a string of questions about polling and then didn't bother to look for any of the answers that were easily found. I guess I just got the impression you didn't want to find out.

so, you're diggin' where I'm comin' from now, then?

I was referring to your seemingly irrational fear of "the media".

I don't 'fear' the media. I simply don't trust them. They are not the unbiased Fifth Estate they claim to be. They are an industry. Just as I don't trust the tobacco industry, (even though I am an addict of their products. Or perhaps because of it.), I similarly don't trust the media. In fact, I trust them less as they claim to be unbiased, whereas the tobacco scoundrels have since admitted that they are such.

No one said anything about your real name or identity. That's your business, as mine is mine.

then don't throw the word 'paranoia' around, dude.

Simple suspiciousness is not paranoia--not if it is based on past experience or expectations learned from the experience of others.

my suspicions are.

An unmistakable sign of paranoia is continual mistrust. People with paranoid personality disorder are constantly on their guard because they see the world as a threatening place.

I see it as a wonderful place, full of good people, with some real asshats runnin' around loose.

persons with paranoid personality disorder...cannot accept blame, not even mild criticism...even when they are at fault

I have been proven wrong so many times I've lost count. I probably couldn't count the number of times I've admitted my mistakes on this site alone.

In addition to being argumentative and uncompromising, the people with paranoid personality disorder are often emotionally cut off from other people. They appear cold and, in fact, often avoid becoming intimate with others.

I am a fun-loving twit.

Kendler, K.S.; Spitzer, R.L.; and Williams, J.B.W. Psychotic disorders in DSM-III-R. The American Journal of Psychiatry 146:953-962, 1989.

Munro, A. Delusional (paranoid) disorders. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry Vol. 33(5):399-404, 1988.

Opjordsmoen, S. Long-term course and outcome in delusional disorder. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Vol. 78(5):576-586, 1988.

Schizophrenia Bulletin Vol 7, No. 4, 1981 (available in most medical libraries).

Sorensen, D.J.; Paul, G.L.; and Mariotto, M.J. Inconsistencies in paranoid functioning, premorbid adjustment, and chronicity: Question of diagnostic criteria. Schizophrenia Bulletin Vol. 14(2):323-336, 1988.

Williams, J.G. Cognitive intervention for a paranoid personality disorder. Psychotherapy Vol. 25(4):570-575, 1988.


(Yeah, I'm doing some research on it. Maybe my book-learnin' is making me hypersensitive, and paranoid?)

 

[Jungle]

As of now, here are the results of an online CTV poll, found here: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate:

Have your feelings about the Afghanistan mission changed over time?

Yes, I'm less supportive  1183 votes    (13 %)

No, I still support it  3393 votes    (38 %)

Yes, I support it even more  2055 votes    (23 %)

No, I never supported it  2271 votes    (26 %)

 
Total Votes: 8902

Well, that's 61% of nearly 9000 people who took the poll that support the mission.
I realise it's not very scientific, but there are almost ten times as many respondents as most "scientific" polls... Feel free to vote !! 

 

[MarkOttawa]

George Wallace: As I understand it most US forces with be under NATO ISAF by next year, with some staying under US command and doing only hard-core counter-terrorism combat.

Excerpts from this story, "Briton takes charge of fight to tame warlords"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2160377,00.html

'A THREE-STAR British general who takes control of Nato operations in Afghanistan this week will have thousands of American combat troops under his command — the first time this has happened since General Bernard Montgomery took charge of the US 9th Army in late 1944.

Lieutenant-General David Richards’s command will cover every region of the country by September and include about 8,000 US combat troops ["by September" seems premature], who are engaged in counterinsurgency and reconstruction programmes in eastern Afghanistan. They currently come under US Central Command...

...The only soldiers who will remain strictly under the control of US Central Command will be American special forces and covert operators engaged against al-Qaeda in Operation Enduring Freedom...'

And this from Reuters:
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-05-04T100646Z_01_ISL111238_RTRUKOC_0_UK-AFGHAN-NATO.xml

'The NATO force will focus on improving security so the government and international community can begin to develop the economy, while a separate U.S. force will remain in charge of a counter-terrorist mission...

The last phase of the expansion will see NATO taking command of U.S. forces now operating in the east, where Islamist insurgents are also active. No date has been set but it is expected late this year or early next...'

And from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/04/world/europe/04cnd-afghanistan.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1146801600&en=b2dd0385a798da1c&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

'The arrival of 6,000 NATO troops in the south will allow the United States to reduce its force of 19,000 by 2,000 to 3,000 in August. American forces will remain in the border provinces of eastern Afghanistan and are expected to come under the NATO flag by November, giving General Richards command of the entire international military force across the whole country.'

And I think this seals it, from NATO ISAF itself, "Statement from Minister Cetin.  NATO Senior Civilian Representative."
http://www.afnorth.nato.int/ISAF/Update/Press_Releases/speeches/2006/speech_04may06.htm

"ISAF IX will face another crucial moment later this year. It is intended ISAF absorb most of the functions of CFC-A and COMISAF will be the senior NATO military commander of international forces in Afghanistan. CFC-A will continue however, to carry out some missions. We have created a command structure that will enable both missions to do their jobs in a fully coordinated way."

While the exact timing of NATO taking over command of US forces in the east, and how many will be outside NATO command, are not clear yet, the fact of the command transfer seems real enough.

CFC-A is US Combined Forces Command - Afghanistan:
http://www.cfc-a.centcom.mil/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[George Wallace]

MarkOttawa

The US is usually very stringent in their rule that only Americans command their troops.  We shall see how the actual breakdown of commands really are once the Press can stop speculating and find a reliable and accurate source.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

As I understand it most US forces with be under NATO ISAF by next year, with some staying under US command and doing only hard-core counter-terrorism combat

IMHO, this is all political smoke and mirrors.  There is will be very little difference between NATO operating in Kandahar and the US under CFC-A, if only because the threat level is certainly going to remain the same.  There are elements within ISAF (France and Germany in particular) who are adverse to publicly taking on a "combat" role in Afghanistan, hence the hoary old "peacekeeper" terminology (that I despise, BTW).  Other countries - Canada and the UK, for instance, are less reticent to admit what they're actually doing in theatre....  Of course, one can ask what the French were up to in other parts of Afghanistan - alongside the Americans. 

The US is usually very stringent in their rule that only Americans command their troops.

True, but ISAF has exercised operational control over US troops in the past.  Our QRF company during the Presidential election was American and reported in a similar manner to other ISAF troops.  Canada has the same rule - with very few exceptions, we never let another nation directly command our forces, but will permit "operational control".

My opinion?  I'll be shocked if NATO has its act together in time to meet this 31 Jul deadline.  I remember when ISAF was to take over the Western provinces (Herat, etc.); the wrangling went on for months past the much-touted timeframe.  There are still European countries who will not overtly support combat operations, and that is certainly what is to be required in the Southern part of the country for the foreseeable future.  Frankly, given past practice, the further we are from a (Continental) European influence on operations, the better.

TR

 

[TCBF]

" I think the media has the responsibility to show all sides of the story ..."

- The media have a responsibility to their shareholders - no more, no less.

"They are not the unbiased Fifth Estate they claim to be. They are an industry. "

- Correct!

" The media is doing exactly the job it's supposed to : Giving me accurate(until paracowboy comes back with a verdict anyway) and timely information in order for me to make an informed decision."

- The media functions economically as a branch of the entertainment industry.  If accurate and timely information on current affairs appeals to us more than accurate and timely information on Madonna, then the media that convinces us that it can entertain us by providing for our needs gets our attention, and our (or through advertising - someone else's) money.  Thus, it survives to do more of the same.  Within this economic function, there exists a professional media, but it cannot exist as it is if it ignores the 'bottom line' focus of the entertainment industry to which it belongs.  Whereas, the entertainment industry can exist just fine without a professional media providing accurate and timely information.  Hence the good editorial on page two and the picture of a scantily dressed Liz Hurley on page one.  Ya gotta sell the product.

Tom

 

[Centurian1985]

Ref US working uder Brits, there's being in command of US troops and being in command of US troops.  Just because a US officer salutes a higher rank doesnt mean they are under their command.  The US service members I worked with would salute any command given by an officer, but carrying out any command is another story all together.  I.e. They will not carry out any commands that involve risking the lives of their men unless they have been ordered by their own US superior officers to follow such commands as ordered, and only the orders of specific foreign officers, and will not obey commands that are contrary to previously issued commands from US officers. This would also include any acts that would reflect poorly on the US or its military. 

Some people dont get it, but its actually pretty simple and a lot of common sense.  We tend to follow the same reasoning; I.E. when I worked in NATO, an officer could give me an order, and I would salute him, but he couldnt MAKE me follow his/her orders if you get my drift, if I believed that following the order would reflect poorly on my country or my uniform, or if the order was contrary to a lawful order given by a Canadian officer. 

Generally, though, there is an unwritten rule (supported by formal MOU's and other inter-nation agreements) within the military that a Canadian soldier is expected to obey the lawful command of any allied US or Commonwealth officer.  They at times try to make this apply to all NATO officers or officers from an allied country on deployment, like saluting, but actual obeyance depends on the relations between countries at the time.

Back to the starting point, in the end, you can give a US officer or soldier a command, but the only reason they are obeying is if they want to or are ordered to do so by their superiors prior to deployed under your command.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

OK, now that Centurian1985 has sufficiently muddied the waters ("some people don't get it"...heh), we must delve into command relationships.

In Canada (as in the rest of NATO), we recognize different command relationships, each of which has its own term.  In this context, we're dealing with Operational Command (OPCOM) and Operational Control (OPCON).

Operational Command (OPCOM):

The authority granted to a commander to assign missions or tasks to subordinate commanders, to deploy units, to reassign forces, and to retain or delegate operational and/or tactical control as may be deemed necessary. It does not of itself include responsibility for administration or logistics. May also be used to denote the forces assigned to a commander.

Operational Control (OPCON):

Operational control may be delegated and is the authority to perform those functions of command over subordinate forces involving organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning tasks, designating objectives, and giving authoritative direction necessary to accomplish the mission. Operational control does not, in and of itself, include authoritative direction for logistics or matters of administration, discipline, internal organization, or unit training.  OPCON does not permit (1) assignment of a separate employment to force components, (2) does not allow the redress of imbalances and shortfalls within the forces assigned, and (3) does not allow the reassignment of forces.

There is a huge difference between the two.  A unit under OPCOM could be split up, reassigned a different mission or placed under a different command entirely.  OPCON essentially allows the commander to assign a unit tasks, usually within very specific limitations.

Canada very, very rarely allows foreign powers to exercise OPCOM over our forces (although there are instances where this does happen).  Indeed, we typically assign a National Command Element (NCE) to each mission specifically to provide that level of command and control.  In addition, the CDS always exercises full command over the CF, which means he can give any direction to CF units at any time.  Thus in Afghanistan, the 1 PPCLI Battle Group is under full command of the CDS, OPCOM TFA NCE, and OPCON to CFC-A.  The terms are not mutually exclusive.

Similarly, any US forces assigned to ISAF in Afghanistan will likely be placed NATO OPCON to COMISAF, but remain OPCOM to their national authorities.  This allows COMISAF to use them as indicated above.  Again, my brigade HQ had US forces OPCON in Afghanistan a while ago with very few US national restrictions in place.  The US Commander said "yes sir" to the NATO chain of command, just like anyone else.

Within NATO, soldiers obey orders as assigned by their command relationship; an OPCON soldier has recourse to his/her national chain of command (OPCOM) if there are issues - a simple "I ain't doing that" isn't on.

One more thing.  Saluting is a matter of politeness - commissioned officers of any nation should be saluted by their inferiors in rank.

TR

 

[chrisf]

Generally, though, there is an unwritten rule (supported by formal MOU's and other inter-nation agreements) within the military that a Canadian soldier is expected to obey the lawful command of any allied US or Commonwealth officer.  They at times try to make this apply to all NATO officers or officers from an allied country on deployment, like saluting, but actual obeyance depends on the relations between countries at the time.

Just out of curiosity (And I realise I'm probably pulling the thread further away from it's topic, and if a moderator feels the need to split me here, by all means, do so) but with officers of most of the other commonwealth nations, as they're comissioned by the same crown, would there be a legal obligation to follow their orders? (Not that I could see any, say, Australian officer giving any orders that would disparage Canada, and hence, no reason not to follow the order, but like I said, curiosity).

 

[MarkOttawa]

The essential point I was trying to make is that the Canadian media chose not to cover a significant event--with at least symbolically important effects.  Because our media are not covering Afstan as a whole, though they do have an obviously justified bias towards Canadian stories.  They are rather looking for  stories in which Canadian military activities are juxtaposed against those of the US, while ignoring the many other countries involved.

An agenda is sniffed.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

The Globe and Mail continues its efforts to undercut the Afstan mission: "Liberals ponder role in Afghanistan"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060508.LIBERALS08/TPStory/National

This is the third paragraph of the story about a meeting of Ontario Liberals attended by all eleven federal leadership candidates:

"Comments and speeches by the candidates and interim leader Bill Graham focused on the environment, aboriginals, social justice, foreign aid and longer-term economic issues. Canada's Afghanistan mission, despite being one of the main political issues at the federal level, was barely mentioned."

The first paragraph, however, states:

"Canada's military mission in Afghanistan is shaping up to be the most sensitive issue in the Liberal leadership campaign, as public support declines for the mission originally launched when the party was in power."

The two paragraphs directly contradict each other. One cannot but suspect that the Globe and Mail is deliberately trying to sow doubt about the Afghanistan mission. That would be fine on the editorial page; it is not fine when it leads to clearly distorted news reporting.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Gunner]

Just out of curiosity (And I realise I'm probably pulling the thread further away from it's topic, and if a moderator feels the need to split me here, by all means, do so) but with officers of most of the other commonwealth nations, as they're comissioned by the same crown, would there be a legal obligation to follow their orders? (Not that I could see any, say, Australian officer giving any orders that would disparage Canada, and hence, no reason not to follow the order, but like I said, curiosity).

Just a Sig Op, reread Teddy Ruxpin's post above and it will answer your question.  If you still don't understand, I will tell you the answer.

 

[Centurian1985]

Thank you Teddy, very nicely summarized.  Works at high levels of command and in highly organized and structured environment. 

(edited - further response just muddied the water more for those unfamilair with highly flexible environments that lack an established command structure.)

 

[Edward Campbell]

Susan Riley is a fairly well known ‘left wing’ columnist and commentator (a regular talking head on TVO, for example); she is also exceptionally well plugged in, I think, to the NDP and to the left wing of the Liberal Party.  She is probably saying, out loud, what NDP insiders (and more than half of Liberal insiders, too) are saying amongst themselves.

This article is taken from today’s Ottawa Citizen and is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=2a1c524e-cafc-4861-92be-1954a27e6668

The Afghanistan Wedge

Susan Riley, The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Monday, May 08, 2006

There is only one cloud on Stephen Harper's electoral horizon these days, and it is shaped like Afghanistan.

Despite a cosy consensus among elites that Canada has a responsibility to be in Afghanistan, a doubting public is not so sure. Polls suggest ambivalence at best, and outright skepticism among many -- not in the abilities or dedication of Canadian troops, but in the possibility of victory. Afghanistan is rightly judged too difficult a country to subdue, too different a culture to eagerly embrace western democracy, and, increasingly, too dangerous to try to help.

Eventually, a federal political party will get ahead of this growing unease and make a compelling argument for helping Afghanistan in some other, more effective way than sending 2,000 troops to play cat and mouse with suicide bombers. What that way is has yet to be enunciated, but it will probably emphasize diplomacy and increased humanitarian aid, rather than a military presence.

Without the protection of troops, however, hospitals can't be built, roads can't be reconstructed and girls cannot safely attend school. So goes the argument for armed intervention. On the other side, veteran aid workers complain that their military escorts make them more, not less, vulnerable to the anti-western fanatics who have no compunction about how many civilians they kill.

Is it even possible to deliver basic services in such an environment? Recent reports reveal that Kabul, the relatively peaceful capital, is still without electricity in many neighbourhoods, four years after the invasion. The opium trade continues apace, as does appalling poverty, and, say some observers, there isn't much to show for $8 billion in foreign aid since 2001.

There are other troubling questions: if the U.S. military, with all its resources, still can't find Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar, how good is its intelligence? How will it defeat an enemy that knows the terrain intimately, that is in for the long haul and not just until the American public decides enough is enough? There is opposition to the Afghan venture in Britain and Holland, Canada's two NATO partners, as well. More western politicians are asking if we are fighting terrorism, or fanning it? Senior military officials have said that every insurgent killed creates 10 more.

The most resonant counter-argument may be Harper's declaration that Canada doesn't "cut and run." Behind the macho language is a more subtle appeal to our obligation as a wealthy, peaceful country not to turn our backs on the world, not to leave it to others to fight the evil of fanaticism on our behalf. It is a powerful moral appeal -- one that will particularly engage Pearsonian Liberals -- and a simple, strident demand to pull our troops out isn't an adequate answer.

What we need is another way to help -- an intervention that will, at minimum, improve the daily lives of Afghans, and, at best, dampen anti-western terrorism by removing a provocation.

Instead of debating these options, our parliamentarians engage in surrogate skirmishes over marginal matters -- like whether a vote should be called before Canada commits to the next phase. The Liberals are boxed in by immediate history: they initiated the Afghan mission and their present interim leader, Bill Graham, as the former defence minister, was a prominent defender of Canada's role.

So far, no serious difference of opinion has emerged among the 11 Liberal leadership candidates -- although Michael Ignatieff might be expected to take a tough line against terrorism, and Gerard Kennedy may be more anguine about a continuing military involvement. The cynical candidates will await further guidance from the polls. If public opinion moves strongly against the war, so will they -- if only to ensure the New Democrats don't capitalize.

So far, the NDP, and the Bloc Quebecois have done little more than express nervous concern -- particularly odd, on the part of the Bloc, given strong doubts in Quebec about the war. Steven Staples, of the Polaris Institute, blames "a Parliament that isn't very solid yet. No one is willing to take on the Conservatives."

For now, the Bloc appears content to push the fiscal imbalance (even though "winning" the issue will be bad for sovereignty.) As for the NDP, it continues to direct more fury at the Liberals than at Harper. Yet calling for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in favour of increased non-military aid could be the wedge Jack Layton is looking for -- unless some wily Liberal leadership hopeful gets there first.

Susan Riley's column runs Monday,Wednesday and Friday. Email sriley@thecitizen.canwest.com

© The Ottawa Citizen 2006

I think she is right that this can be a wedge issue: one which the Liberals and BQ will try to use to frighten Québecers away from the Conservatives and a wedge issue which the NDP and Liberals will try to use in Greater Vancouver and suburban Toronto.

The key points in the wedge are, quoting Riley:

Eventually, a federal political party will get ahead of this growing unease and make a compelling argument for helping Afghanistan in some other, more effective way than sending 2,000 troops to play cat and mouse with suicide bombers. What that way is has yet to be enunciated, but it will probably emphasize diplomacy and increased humanitarian aid, rather than a military presence.

and

What we (by “we” Riley means the political left, in Canada, mainly the NDP) need is another way to help -- an intervention that will, at minimum, improve the daily lives of Afghans, and, at best, dampen anti-western terrorism by removing a provocation.

That will, I think be a card played by all three opposition parties.  The NDP and Liberals have already started (as reported, today, elsehwre on Army.ca (see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42027/post-377198.html#msg377198 )) by suggesting that we should go to Darfur.  The NDP says ”withdraw from Afghanistan and go to Darfur” while the Liberals say ”go to Darfur now“, presumably to withdraw from Afghanistan as soon as we wake up and recognize that we haven’t the horses to do both.

I think that is Riley is telling us this, now, that the people who inform her have already planned their strategies and tactics.  They are using her – I suspect she does not object to being used in this manner – to test drive their campaigns.  We can expect to see more and more:

• Afghanistan cannot be ‘won’ by military means;

• Canada must be in Darfur, now!

• Canada should send money to Afghanistan and troops and money to Sudan;

• Let the ‘real’ axis of evil (America, Britain and Australia) fight in Afghanistan – Canada will lead a coalition of the boy scouts and blacks in good works – feeding babies in Africa.

Coming soon to a TV screen near you.  Watch for it!

The key thing, though, is that this is not an issue of principle.  It is, as Riley says, a wedge issue which the BQ, Liberals and NDP plan to use for purely partisan, domestic political reasons.  Few (not none, just few) care if black Sudanese in Darfur die in further tens of thousands – it is the hundreds of thousands of Canadian voters who might be attracted to Harpers “we don’t cut and run” rhetoric and might decide to vote Conservative that matter.

----------
PS - Moderators: any chance of changing the title to "Canadian public don't want troops in Afghanistan.?  :-*

Edit: typo

 

[TMM]

• Canada must be in Darfur, now!

• Canada should send money to Afghanistan and troops and money to Sudan;

If people think that Afghanistan is too great a risk I fail to see the logic in sending them to Darfur and Sudan, both of which seem far more dangerous than A-stan.

I'd love to get some feedback on that from those who have been to those locales. Feel free to take it to PMs if this constitutes a thread hi-jack.

 

[Centurian1985]

Susan Riley is a fairly well known ‘left wing’ columnist and commentator (a regular talking head on TVO, for example); she is also exceptionally well plugged in, I think, to the NDP and to the left wing of the Liberal Party.  She is probably saying, out loud, what NDP insiders (and more than half of Liberal insiders, too) are saying amongst themselves.

This article is taken from today’s Ottawa Citizen and is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=2a1c524e-cafc-4861-92be-1954a27e6668
I think she is right that this can be a wedge issue: one which the Liberals and BQ will try to use to frighten Québecers away from the Conservatives and a wedge issue which the NDP and Liberals will try to use in Greater Vancouver and suburban Toronto.

The key points in the wedge are, quoting Riley:
and

That will, I think be a card played by all three opposition parties.  The NDP and Liberals have already started (as reported, today, elsehwre on Army.ca (see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42027/post-377198.html#msg377198 )) by suggesting that we should go to Darfur.  The NDP says ”withdraw from Afghanistan and go to Darfur” while the Liberals say ”go to Darfur now“, presumably to withdraw from Afghanistan as soon as we wake up and recognize that we haven’t the horses to do both.

I think that is Riley is telling us this, now, that the people who inform her have already planned their strategies and tactics.  They are using her – I suspect she does not object to being used in this manner – to test drive their campaigns.  We can expect to see more and more:

• Afghanistan cannot be ‘won’ by military means;

• Canada must be in Darfur, now!

• Canada should send money to Afghanistan and troops and money to Sudan;

• Let the ‘real’ axis of evil (America, Britain and Australia) fight in Afghanistan – Canad will lead a coalition of the boy scouts and blacks in good works – feeding babies in Africa.

Coming soo to a TV scren near you.  Watch for it!

The key thing, though, is that this is not an issue of principle.  It is, as Riley says, a wedge issue which the BQ, Liberals and NDP plan to use for purely partisan, domestic political reasons.  Few (not none, just few) care if black Sudanese in Darfur die in further tens of thousands – it is the hundreds of thousands of Canadian voters who might be attracted to Harpers “we don’t cut and run” rhetoric and might decide to vote Conservative that matter.

----------
PS - Moderators: any chance of changing the title to "Canadian public don't want troops in Afghanistan.?  :-*

Any chance of you spelling Canada correctly (hehe, I got caught spelling it wrong by Trinity, now its someone else's turn.    ;D)

 

[Centurian1985]

Edward;

I must admit Im a bit confused by your post - are you predicting this is what they will do, or are you supporting the idea of going into Sudan?  Dont want to take a swipe at your opinion if you are only interpreting someone else's statement...  ???

 

[scm77]

I didn't know if I should put this in the Sudan thread, or in here, if the mods feel it fits better somewhere else, please move it.

Shift some troops from Afghan mission to Darfur
Getting engaged in Sudan would help us return to our historic, moral role, says Haroon Siddiqui
May 7, 2006. 01:00 AM
HAROON SIDDIQUI

T he peace agreement in Darfur opens up an opportunity for Canada to get back to its trademark United Nations peacekeeping role and ease its way out of the ill-advised U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.

Our initial deployment in Kabul in 2001 involved peacemaking. Our troops secured the city with force and tact, using little of the former but a lot of the latter, winning kudos worldwide.

But without telling Canadians the whole truth, Gen. Rick Hillier and the Paul Martin Liberals committed our troops in Kandahar to U.S. command and also the failed U.S. war on terrorism.

By most accounts, the Taliban are all over the south in greater numbers than at any time since they were toppled and are ambushing foreign troops and terrorizing the local population.

Foreign soldiers and their Afghan helpers may rule by day but it is the Taliban writ that runs at night, with the civilians caught in-between, pressed for "intelligence" by one side and squeezed for food, money and protection by the other.

This is the archetypal nightmare scenario of societies under siege, like Chechnya and Vietnam. We need to get out of it, not because it is dangerous but because it is of dubious value.

If the U.S. tactics were going to work, they would have by now.

Osama bin Laden would have been killed or caught and we would not still be reading the tea leaves in his taped messages.

Afghans would have known security and been hugging the Americans, not hating them.

The land would have been bearing fruit, not poppies.

Fortunately, most of the Americans are to depart soon — to, where else? Iraq — and our Afghan operations are to come under the NATO umbrella, under British command. The rules of engagement may improve.

Our commitment ends in February. Instead of extending it, as Stephen Harper and Hillier want, we should plan to move half, if not all, our troops to Sudan, depending on the effectiveness of our Afghan operation.

Such redeployment would please George W. Bush, given his passion for Darfur. It would also be the right thing to do.

Both Martin and Harper have dodged this pressing moral issue. Canada did contribute humanitarian aid and some logistical support for the African Union's peace force in Darfur. Our envoy to the United Nations, Allan Rock, has been part of the peace talks. But, overall, Ottawa has been peripatetic.

The horrors of Darfur are stamped on our conscience:

In 2003, rebel groups attacked government targets to protest widespread neglect of and discrimination against the inhabitants of the arid region. Khartoum unleashed its proxy militia, which went on a rampage of arson, looting, rape and murder.

About 180,000 people were killed and 2 million displaced.

The intra-Muslim conflict has been portrayed as one between Arabs and non-Arabs. It is, but only in part, as the earlier one in the south was not just about Muslims and non-Muslims.

Ethnicity and religion are but two of many fault lines that have plagued Sudan since independence from the British in 1954.

The real conflict is between an authoritative central government, rich on oil revenues, and the remote regions that remain ignored and poor, leaving the people to, first, fight among themselves over the meagre resources and, then, the federal government.

Until that imbalance is corrected, no patched-up peace agreement, as welcome as it is, can lead to a lasting solution any more than the 2005 peace deal with the south has.

Canada can play a role in guiding Sudan toward a democratic and decentralized federation.

As a start, Senator RomeóDallaire, former commander of the ill-fated UN mission in Rwanda, suggests that Canada help translate the peace deal into a strong Security Council mandate for a peacekeeping force, with the power to penalize Khartoum if it does not fulfil its promises to Darfur.

Getting engaged in Sudan on those twin fronts would help us return to our historic role and also rediscover our moral core.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1146865815526&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795
--------------------------------------

Our initial deployment in Kabul in 2001 involved peacemaking. Our troops secured the city with force and tact, using little of the former but a lot of the latter, winning kudos worldwide.

Wasn't our initial deployment to Kandahar (with operations taking place in other locatations as well)?  And wasn't that combat, not "peacemaking"?

Fortunately, most of the Americans are to depart soon — to, where else? Iraq

Most?  All the info I can find says they will be reduced this year by 2500-3500, from around 20,000.  That's not "most".

Any more errors that I missed?

 

[Edward Campbell]

If people think that Afghanistan is too great a risk I fail to see the logic in sending them to Darfur and Sudan, both of which seem far more dangerous than A-stan.
...

I don’t think the overwhelming majority of Canadians gave any thought at all to the human costs of Afghanistan.  The campaign said <to the tune of “We’re off to Dublin”> “We’re off to Kabul because it isn’t Iraq and Bush’s ugly Americans aren’t there, yet … not too many, at least … maybe.”  We moved to Kandahar with little fanfare and even less public discourse – we could have had a safer PRT but everyone else jumped ahead of us in the line because our government dithered, comme d’habitude.

One of the main reasons we have a debate right now is that there is a new government.  The Parliamentary Press Gallery consists, in my personal opinion, mostly of stenographers who are, by and large, accustomed and only to happy to take dictation from Liberal Party of Canada press agents and spin doctors.

Real body bags and wounded soldiers – which had been coming home quietly, almost secretly from the Balkans – only became public when to same spin doctors reckoned they could be used to solidify Canadians’ growing opposition to US foreign policy.

As Susan Riley says, this can be a wedge issue.  I think we have seen all four of the points I suggested will be part of the loony-left's campaign (and none of which I believe or propose, by the way – just to be clear) in the press and on TV over the past few days and I think you will be absolutely bombarded with them very soon.

Canadians, as a group, do not think very much or very often – especially not about foreign/defence policy issues.  They will be shocked, SHOCKED when Canadian soldiers are killed in action in Darfur, if we are ever stupid enough to go to Sudan and withdraw from Afghanistan).

The Bloc, Liberals and NDP will lie about serving humanity and so on.  I repeat: they are in the business of trying to recover voters who have strayed from the true path; they care little for dead and dying Africans.  They will somehow manage to avoid talking about  casualties, too.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I'll bite, scm77...Siddiqui's article is so full of holes that it's laughable...  My comments in red.

Shift some troops from Afghan mission to Darfur
Getting engaged in Sudan would help us return to our historic, moral role, says Haroon Siddiqui
May 7, 2006. 01:00 AM
HAROON SIDDIQUI

T he peace agreement in Darfur opens up an opportunity for Canada to get back to its trademark United Nations peacekeeping role and ease its way out of the ill-advised U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.

Trademark role?  Trademark to whom?

Our initial deployment in Kabul in 2001 involved peacemaking. Our troops secured the city with force and tact, using little of the former but a lot of the latter, winning kudos worldwide.

Canada did not deploy to Kabul in 2001.  As has been pointed out, we deployed to Kandahar in a warfighting role in 2002, then to Kabul in 2003.  The city was "secured" by then - by the British and others.

But without telling Canadians the whole truth, Gen. Rick Hillier and the Paul Martin Liberals committed our troops in Kandahar to U.S. command and also the failed U.S. war on terrorism.

General Hillier committed our troops?  Interesting in a democracy...and blatently untrue.  Failed?  By what measure?  By what timeline?

By most accounts, the Taliban are all over the south in greater numbers than at any time since they were toppled and are ambushing foreign troops and terrorizing the local population.

Which accounts?  A source would be nice.  Is the level of violence really any greater, or is this more hyperbole?

Foreign soldiers and their Afghan helpers may rule by day but it is the Taliban writ that runs at night, with the civilians caught in-between, pressed for "intelligence" by one side and squeezed for food, money and protection by the other.

A very good reason to pull out and abandon the civilians to their fate...  :

This is the archetypal nightmare scenario of societies under siege, like Chechnya and Vietnam. We need to get out of it, not because it is dangerous but because it is of dubious value.

If the U.S. tactics were going to work, they would have by now.

Why?  Who set the timeline?  A reporter with zero time on the ground?  Who's to say they aren't working - in Afghanistan at least?

Osama bin Laden would have been killed or caught and we would not still be reading the tea leaves in his taped messages.

Unless he's being helped by someone across the border in Pakistan...hmmm?

Afghans would have known security and been hugging the Americans, not hating them.

Again, there's absolutely zero in the way of evidence for such an inflamatory statement.  Has Siddiqui done his own poll?

The land would have been bearing fruit, not poppies.

And the sky would be filled with rainbows...   :

Fortunately, most of the Americans are to depart soon — to, where else? Iraq — and our Afghan operations are to come under the NATO umbrella, under British command. The rules of engagement may improve.

Again, has been pointed out, the Americans will still outnumber all other NATO countries combined.  Siddiqui remembers that the British are in Iraq too, right?  Moreover, how are the rules of engagement going to "improve"?  This statement is so vague and unfounded in reality that its laughable.  Siddiqui has no idea what ROE are in place now and what ROE have been in place on CF missions since the concept was introduced.  He is singularly ill-positioned to comment on them here.

Our commitment ends in February. Instead of extending it, as Stephen Harper and Hillier want, we should plan to move half, if not all, our troops to Sudan, depending on the effectiveness of our Afghan operation.

And what are they to do in Darfur?  What other countries are deploying too?  Under what mandate?  Have we the agreement of all warring parties?  If not, are we prepared to impose a solution?

Such redeployment would please George W. Bush, given his passion for Darfur. It would also be the right thing to do.

*snipped some politically-motivated pathos*

Getting engaged in Sudan on those twin fronts would help us return to our historic role and also rediscover our moral core.

Oh please... :