2006 Parliamentary Debate on AFG Mission

[Enzo]

Yeah. I concur with majoor's thinking about Harper. That was definitely a toe in the water.

 

[vonGarvin]

Technicolour dreaming? Maybe.........or maybe not 

Hopefully not, but what does "Ken Ore, Ya mo tsuki" actually mean???

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is an interesting opinion piece by Eugene Lang, copied, under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, from today’s Globe and Mail.

Mr. Lang is a partisan Liberal but, unlike me and, I suspect all of us, he was there, in the room.  Some may doubt his motive and some may suspect that he ‘tailors’ the facts, as he remembers them, to support his case but we should not doubt his honesty – not without real proof.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060519.wxcoafghan19/BNStory/specialComment/home

We never discussed the real Afghan option

EUGENE LANG

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Parliament has just narrowly passed a motion approving a two-year extension to Canada's military operation in Afghanistan. The government framed the issue as a stark choice between extending the current mission in Kandahar or withdrawing the Canadian Forces entirely from Afghanistan.

In reality, the choice is not black and white at all. To grasp the real options for Canada in Afghanistan, you need to understand the complex nature of the current mission and the history behind it.

In 2003, Jean Chrétien decided that Canada would offer to command and contribute 2,000 troops to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a multinational NATO mission in Kabul. Its mandate fell somewhere between combat and peacekeeping and was designed to provide security and stability to the nascent Afghan government.

Canada's then military leadership was concerned that the Canadian Forces would get bogged down in ISAF, unable to extricate themselves for several years. As a result, an exit strategy was developed. It was decided that, after a year of commanding and contributing a large number of troops to ISAF, Canada would deploy a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Afghanistan. The PRT would be made up of 200 to 300 soldiers, plus other civilian government officials, and would allow Canada to gracefully bow out of ISAF, yet remain committed to Afghanistan and carry out important reconstruction tasks -- such as training police and advising on governance -- elsewhere in the country.

Officials in the Department of National Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs, frequently at odds with one another, dithered and bickered for about a year and a half over where Canada's PRT should be located. During that crucial period, other NATO countries deployed PRTs throughout Afghanistan. Hence, by early 2005, the only part of the country that lacked a sufficient number of PRTs was the Kandahar region, the birthplace of the Taliban, the locus of the resistance and the most dangerous and unstable part of Afghanistan. As a result, Canada's PRT decision became academic; we had won the Kandahar sweepstakes by default.

At this point, Paul Martin had replaced Mr. Chrétien as prime minister and had appointed a new chief of the defence staff, General Rick Hillier, who had headed the ISAF mission. Gen. Hillier advised Mr. Martin that, in addition to the PRT, Canada should deploy a 1,000-troop combat task force, plus special forces that, together, would carry out essential counterinsurgency operations in Kandahar, in part to relieve the Americans.

Mr. Martin, who was never keen on Canada's presence in Afghanistan, reluctantly approved this expanded mission, principally because he was told it would not preclude a second significant Canadian Forces deployment to Darfur or Haiti, both of which were preoccupying him. There was also an understanding at that time that the combat part of the Kandahar mission would be in place for one year only, but that the PRT would likely stay beyond that point. I was in the room in the spring of 2005 when those decisions and commitments were made.

For reasons that are not yet clear, the Harper government is equivocal on whether a significant second mission elsewhere in the world can be mounted in tandem with the extension of the Afghanistan mission.

That brief history explains how and why the Canadian Forces ended up with a combined combat and reconstruction mission in Kandahar. And when put in this context, it is obvious that the Harper government had another option, aside from the false choice of total withdrawal or extension of the existing mission.

Parliament could have been asked to approve an extension -- and perhaps even an increase in the size -- of the reconstruction force. The reconstruction force, by the way, is not a group of namby-pamby soldiers running around with hearts on their sleeves and flowers in their hair. While having a robust mix of soft skills, this unit is made up of highly trained, well-armed, combat-ready soldiers, housed in a virtual fortress, very capable of defending itself against any likely conventional foe in Afghanistan.

With a firm and long-term commitment to a PRT in Kandahar, Canada could have withdrawn our combat forces as was originally planned, having done our bit in the more offensive side of the operation. Another NATO country could then fill in for Canada in the combat role we had vacated, continuing the burden sharing that is the hallmark of the alliance. The choice of focusing on reconstruction and development would have been acceptable within NATO and much more in keeping with what Canadians like to see their military doing abroad.

Yet, that option was never discussed publicly.

The decision to extend Canada's Afghan mission is no trivial matter. This is a huge issue for Canada, with appreciable human and financial costs. Forcing a sudden and premature parliamentary vote on it is one thing, but framing it as a simplistic choice to either stay in Afghanistan or abandon this struggling country is the real sin.

Eugene Lang was chief of staff to Liberal defence ministers John McCallum and Bill Graham.

Lang say that: “Officials in the Department of National Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs, frequently at odds with one another, dithered and bickered for about a year and a half over where Canada's PRT should be located.”  I’m sure that’s true but I think he might have been a touch more accurate had he said something like: “Officials and political appointee staffers in the Prime Minister’s Office, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs, frequently at odds with one another, dithered and bickered …”

Lang fails to point out that bureaucracies (including military bureaucracies) like political parties, change their minds – sometimes, even often to reflect the views of a new leader.  It appears, to me, that DND (and, in part, DFAIT) changed their minds in 2005.  New leadership was and remains intent on transforming the CF and part of that transformation is to get rid of the namby-pamby image and mind set (throughout the government and the country) which bedevils the CF today.

Those points being made I accept the crux of Lang’s position:

• Canada did, indeed, ditrher its way into dangerous Kandahar;

• There were options available to PMs Martin and Harper – both made choices, perhaps in ignorance and by default, but choices none the less;

• Parliament’s debate was narrow.


The responsibility for the dithering rests 100% with the Martin government in which Mr. Lang served in a senior political capacity.

PM Harper has made a choice.  It is a ‘legitimate’ choice based on defensible foreign and defence policy grounds.  Mr. Lang may not like the choice but two dozen Liberals did and another dozen were too timid to show up for the vote.

The fact that parliamentarians failed to deal with a complex question in a sensible, professional manner speaks to the low quality of too many elected members which, in turn, speaks to the low quality of the political process – in all parties – in Canada.  Mr. Lang, as a senior political operator bears some responsibility for that, too.

 

[GAP]

I keep getting the feeling that we should apologize for aggressively going after the insurgents. Everything is couched in politically correct terms and in a roundabout manner.

What is so terrible about going out and kicking A#$ and being proud of do it?

 

[MarkOttawa]

A good and realistic column by Richard Gwyn in the Toronto Star, May 19, "The choice before us is not whether we stay or go; it is whether to try to hide in the past or plunge into the future":
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1147989015328&call_pageid=968256290204

Excerpts:
'...
There's no doubt whatever, though, that political pressure is going to build on the government to get our 2,300 troops out as soon as decently possible...

There is a strong pacifist sentiment in this country. It's strongest in Quebec for historical reasons.

But it's widespread; it explains why, until quite recently, Canadians had come to regard our military as a kind of police force that went around the world handing out sacks of flour and in the meantime helped out at home during ice storms.

Those days are long gone. They're never going to come back...

In Afghanistan, the mission isn't to prevent a war between nation-states but to build a nation-state, from virtually nothing.

This has to be a long-term project. It can't be done, by many allies as well as ourselves, in under five years.

The attempt to do this may fail, of course. It's excruciatingly difficult.

To win, the enemy, the Taliban, does not need to win militarily. It only needs to kill enough people, both Afghans and the foreign troops, until it has won politically.

Political victory for the Taliban will happen when and if public demand in Canada forces the government to opt out of the mission...

It will be a victory for the forces of darkness, of hatred, of those who refuse to accept that all people everywhere have the right to a chance at a decent life...'

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Hot Lips]

Well put...
It's a shame why we can't just get on with supporting this mission, which was started by the Liberals and stop all the debates already...how much time and money has been spent debating...would have better been spent on supporting...IMO

HL

 

[zipperhead_cop]

"Mr. Martin, who was never keen on Canada's presence in Afghanistan, reluctantly approved this expanded mission, principally because he was told it would not preclude a second significant Canadian Forces deployment to Darfur or Haiti, both of which were preoccupying him. There was also an understanding at that time that the combat part of the Kandahar mission would be in place for one year only, but that the PRT would likely stay beyond that point. I was in the room in the spring of 2005 when those decisions and commitments were made."

If this statement was true, then perhaps Dithers should have SHOWN UP and had his say.  Seems like that would have been a pretty big political stick to swing, if it existed.  Pretty easy for Mr. Lang to throw around now that he is not in the "game". 

+1 for Edwards assessment of our time wasting, largely usesless Parliamentary procedures.  It's hard to believe that we even have running water in this country with that gong show making decisions for us.

 

[North Star]

The NDHQ grapevine says that yes, there was dithering and as such we ended up with Kandahar. But it was "political" dithering between members of cabinet. I suspect the Globe article was indeed taliored a bit.

 

[armybuck041]

+1 for Edwards assessment of our time wasting, largely usesless Parliamentary procedures.  It's hard to believe that we even have running water in this country with that gong show making decisions for us.

Now thats funny......

 

[Hot Lips]

+1 for Edwards assessment of our time wasting, largely usesless Parliamentary procedures.  It's hard to believe that we even have running water in this country with that gong show making decisions for us.
[/quote] LMAO ROTFL...omg how true is that.

HL

 

[McG]

Are the Dutch and the UK not in Afghanistan anymore???

They are there, and both nations are providing a BG sized force to same Canadian led OEF Bde that ORION is a part of.

Afghanistan mission vote 'risked lives'
Dallaire attacks Harper gov't 'fiddling'
Andrea Sands, The Edmonton Journal
Published: Sunday, May 21, 2006

SPRUCE GROVE - The federal government needs to stop its political "fiddling" with the military mission in Afghanistan and must also send troops into Darfur, says retired Lt.-Gen. Romeo Dallaire.

During a visit to Spruce Grove on Saturday, the Liberal senator accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of risking soldiers' lives by unnecessarily seeking support last week in the House of Commons to extend Canada's military mission in Afghanistan.

"We've got troops who have already been bloodied in the field and we've got a prime minister who's fiddling back home, trying to manoeuvre himself at their expense," Dallaire said.

"If the opposition ... the troops face realize that maybe we are not committed politically to this mission, then they could use Canadians as a target to ultimately undermine the whole mission.

"If that's the case, then it's the prime minister who's going to carry those bodies on his back, because he didn't need to see that split in that debate in the House."

Dallaire's speech was to members of Spruce Grove's Rotary Club.

Canada currently has about 2,300 troops in Afghanistan, and Parliament voted 149-145 Wednesday night to extend the mission until 2009. But that vote wasn't binding on the government, which has the right to conduct foreign policy as it sees fit.

Harper had vowed before the vote to extend the mission by a year even without approval from the Commons. Angry opposition MPs suggested he was playing politics with soldiers' lives by forcing the vote on two days' notice.

"I think you've got an incredible, callous exercise that went on (last) week," said Dallaire.

But Dallaire, who commanded a poorly supported United Nations peacekeeping mission during the Rwandan genocide of 1994, nevertheless praised Harper for visiting troops in Afghanistan in March.

The move was "absolutely magnificent and of first class," he said.

In his speech, Dallaire argued Canada must send its military into wartorn regions to support civilians who are fending off extremists while struggling to set up stable democratic systems.

The federal government should also send 1,500 troops into the Darfur region of Sudan, or at least contribute 500 soldiers to a UN rapid-reaction brigade already operating in the country, Dallaire told reporters.

"Canada's role is to get off its butt and to do something and continue the effort that Prime Minister Paul Martin started when we went over and we decided to reinforce the African Union."

A shaky peace treaty was signed May5 to end Darfur's three-year civil war, which has killed at least 180,000 and displaced about two million people.

Could these same acusations not be made against anyone that voted against staying in Afghanistan?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Regarding the Dutch (May 11): I think it noteworthy that no Canadian media carried this report (as far as I can see).  No wonder so few people (ordinary, media, politicians) have any serious understanding of what is going on.  And this is the sort of detailed info the government should have given to the House during the debate on Afstan.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C05%5C11%5Cstory_11-5-2006_pg4_22

'Dutch confident about Afghanistan mission

Helicopters, engineers and armoured infantry are helping make the commander of Dutch troops in southern Afghanistan confident of success in their mission in Uruzgan, where now only an handful of special forces are taking on the Taliban...

Despite parliamentary delays in approving the mission amid a heated national debate about it, Morsink [Dutch force commander] said he believed 80 percent of parliamentarians supported the deployment, “and that is very important for the soldiers”. The political support could prove decisive: Western military officials in Afghanistan think the Taliban will try to play on the doubts of the Dutch public in a bid to force their withdrawal.

The about 800 soldiers who are already in Uruzgan, waiting for the arrival by the end of July of some 550 more, have had been engaged by militants twice in the past weeks. The first time was “quite heavy”, involving rockets, grenades and machine-gun fire, Morsink said, adding the soldiers had coped “extremely well”.

...The commander will have at his disposal six Apache attack helicopters and, in a few months, eight F-16 fighters [our forces can but dream]. “They are my Apaches so nobody can tell me in a case of emergency, ‘I cannot help you.’ I have my own means to help myself,” he stressed. The soldiers also will undergo special training in Kandahar before leaving for Uruzgan. AFP'

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Enzo]

Canada must send its military into wartorn regions to support civilians who are fending off extremists while struggling to set up stable democratic systems.

Canada must? Uh, yeah.  : Internal civil matters are not an issue for immediate involvement.

The federal government should also send 1,500 troops into the Darfur region of Sudan, or at least contribute 500 soldiers to a UN rapid-reaction brigade already operating in the country, Dallaire told reporters.

And these troops are coming from where exactly? Not to mention the logistics and ROE, etc.

"Canada's role is to get off its butt and to do something and continue the effort that Prime Minister Paul Martin started when we went over and we decided to reinforce the African Union."

Ok, let's use our civil and political elements to pursue such matters, i.e., contining to support the African Union and rally against states that sell arms to the combatants, etc.

A shaky peace treaty was signed May5 to end Darfur's three-year civil war, which has killed at least 180,000 and displaced about two million people.

Yeah, "shaky" is the word and last time I checked only one faction (albeit the largest) signed that treaty. Anyone want to step into the middle of that nonsense?

Dallaire got rooked and he needs to deal with his demons. I don't concur with his rationale and to be so fervent is misguided and potentially harmful.

 

[McG]

Canada must? Uh, yeah.  : Internal civil matters are not an issue for immediate involvement.

Maybe, but it sounds like another good reason to stay in Afghanistan.

 

[MarkOttawa]

When will Sen. Dallaire, and ourmedia, deign to notice THAT NO UN FORCE for Darfur has been authorized by the UNSC?  And that no Chapter VII force likely will be given the opposition of Khartoum, Beijing and Moscow.  Our media fail dismally in giving a complete picture--but then that is not of interest to them, rather the political story here.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Brad Sallows]

>"If that's the case, then it's the prime minister who's going to carry those bodies on his back, because he didn't need to see that split in that debate in the House."

Refresh my memory, please.  As I recollect the events of the past few months, the Conservatives were not the ones agitating for a debate on the Afghanistan mission. If my recollection is correct, then if the senator wants to chastise a political party for seeking a debate, perhaps someone could steer him in the correct direction since it would appear instead that his memory has failed him.  If he believes that a Commons debate was inappropriate and not required, he can tell them that also, and instruct them that Prime Minister Harper should simply give the orders.

 

[vonGarvin]

The whole thing stinks of political manoeuvring by the LIBERAL senator Dallaire.  The argument *for* his beloved mission in Darfur applies equally to our current mission in Afghanistan.  Also, as anyone knows, a principal of war is Offensive Action.  So, for those who say that we should do "peacekeeping, but ready to defend" are dupes.  Sure there was no need for offensive action in Cyprus (1974 notwithstanding), but this sure as heck isn't Cyprus, the Golan, or anything like that.  As witnessed over the past few years, there are those "over there" who would do not only us, but the citizens harm.  Had we adopted the attitude of "doing good, but able to defend", well, even in defensive operations a key Principal of war that applies is Offensive Action.

(rant off)

 

[Hot Lips]

Here, here vonGarvin,

Seems like quite a bit of commonsense in what you say  :

HL

 

[Edward Campbell]

Former Liberal Defence Minister John McCallum defended his decision to vote against continuing the Afghanistan mission in a letter to the Globe and Mail which is repeated, below, in accordance with the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060522.LETTERS22-2/TPStory/?query=McCallum

Didn't 'cut and run'

JOHN MCCALLUM
Member of Parliament for Markham-Unionville

Ottawa -- John Ibbitson could not be more wrong in saying that I was willing to "cut and run from Afghanistan" in voting against the government's motion to extend the mission (Explosive Issue Leaves Liberals In A Heap -- May 18).

As defence minister in 2003, I recommended the deployment of some 2,000 Canadian soldiers to Kabul. In three visits to Afghanistan, I never ceased to be amazed by the courage and commitment of our forces. As much as anyone, I support our brave men and women in Afghanistan, and I support their mission.

The problem is that the Prime Minister so tainted the process that he insulted our forces and drove natural supporters such as myself to oppose his motion.

As defence minister, I agonized over my life-and-death decision to recommend military deployment to Kabul. I had countless briefings and hours of debate with cabinet colleagues.

I had already had the privilege of meeting the families of fallen heroes. I could not have looked them in the eye had I not been certain that my decision to recommend future deployments to Afghanistan was based on the best possible information and analysis.

Just to make sure I never neglected this human dimension, I always had on the wall at home a large newspaper photograph of a soldier saying goodbye to his young daughter as he prepared to board the plane for Afghanistan.

Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister asked MPs to vote on a similar matter of life and death with almost no notice and no information. The government actually refused to provide an advance briefing to the defence committee.

If the government wants Parliament to vote, then it must follow the example of the Netherlands and allow many weeks of discussion and the dissemination of appropriate information. Wednesday's process was a sham and an insult to our brave soldiers.

To those who say history does not record concerns over process, I say history will take care of itself. For me, it's enough to vote according to what one believes is right.

Whether Liberals voted "no" for reasons of process or "yes" for reasons of substance, we are united in condemning the Prime Minister's cynical abuse of Parliament for partisan purposes having nothing to do with what is good for the Canadian Forces or for Canada.

His ‘defence’ doesn’t add up.

First, he admits ( “… the Prime Minister … drove natural supporters such as myself to oppose his motion.”) that partisan politics, not principle caused him to vote ‘No.’

He complains that parliament did not have ”weeks of discussion” – what arrant nonsense; what balderdash!  Politicians and the media have been talking about little else for weeks.  Elected MPs in Ottawa have excellent research facilities and top rate research staffers (in their own offices and in the Library of Parliament).  If ”appropriate information” did not reach them it is because, and only because they, elected MPs, are either: lazy or too deeply involved in their own, internal, partisan, party business – on the taxpayers’ dime – to do their jobs.

Canadians need to be ”united in condemning” MPs like McCallum who have put partisan political advantage ahead of their sworn duty to their country.

Resign, Mr. McCallum!  You are, by your own words, unable to meet the low standards we Canadians have come to expect from members of our national parliament.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Edward, I totally agree.  I have inmates on my floor right now who have more have more plausible BS than Mr.McCallum does.

No debate?........well, I guess I will put any of my integrity aside, put my thumb in my mouth and make a fool of myself.

I second the resign petition, Mr. McCallum.