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

[zipperhead_cop]

And they got pissy with me when I wouldn't let the district leader of Hutal run projects....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39646568/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
Afghans pay off Taliban with 'American money'

Construction firms, workers say they have to hand over some of their earnings Photos
AP Afghanistan: Nation at a crossroads - Nation at a crossroads .Advertisement | ad info
.By Hamid Shalizi

Cash from the U.S. military and international donors destined for construction and welfare projects in restive parts of Afghanistan is ending up in the hands of insurgents, a contractor and village elders said.

The alliance of largely Western nations who back President Hamid Karzai and have nearly 150,000 troops on Afghan soil have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on aid and infrastructure since they ousted the Taliban from power in late 2001.

With violence spreading and the insurgency bloodier than ever, some construction firms and workers on development projects say they are having to hand over some of their earnings to insurgents to protect their personnel, projects or equipment.

Mohammad Ehsan said he was forced to pay insurgents a substantial part of a $1.2 million contract he won from the U.S. military two months ago to repair a road in Logar province south of Kabul, after they kidnapped his brother and demanded the cash.

"You know we need this American money to help us fund our Jihad," Ehsan quoted them saying when he eventually spent over $200,000 of the project money to secure his brother's freedom.

Ehsan said the insurgents also demanded the cash be changed out of dollars into Afghan or Pakistani currency, saying greenbacks are "Haram" or forbidden for Muslims.

Paying off militants is common across Afghanistan, where it is hard to work in villages or remote areas without greasing the palms of local insurgent commanders, said Ehsan.

"We are aware of those kind of reports ... contracting methods are definitely considered part of the counterinsurgency effort," said Major Joel Harper, spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, when asked about Ehsan's payment. "Such incidents would be investigated, and we have measures in place to try and prevent these things happening."

A U.S. Senate inquiry into private security firms contracting in Afghanistan found last week that funds had sometimes been funneled to warlords linked to insurgents , but did not look at other possible channels taking foreign money to insurgent groups.

The Taliban regularly attack supply convoys and development projects as well as military targets, but spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid denied the group extorts money from contractors, saying other elements may use the Taliban name to defame them.

"It is totally baseless, we don't need any money from any organizations that are linked to the invading force," he told Reuters by telephone from undisclosed location. "The people support us willingly and we will continue our Jihad against all occupying troops and their contractors."

But even elders from Provincial Development Shuras — traditional local councils adapted to foster development — that receive cash for small-scale projects in their villages, say they are not immune to the extortion.

"The Provincial Reconstruction Team gave me 500,000 Afghanis ($10,000) to clean sewers in my village but I was forced to pay 200,000 of it to the Taliban," said Aslam Jan from Logar's Baraki Barak district.

The U.S. government's aid arm USAID said it was aware of the risks from working in dangerous areas and worked to counter them.

"We take very seriously allegations that our funds are finding their way into the Taliban funds. We investigate each such allegation," USAID said in a statement.

Afghans who run transport businesses through volatile areas also prefer to pay off the Taliban rather than hire private guards who are often magnets for insurgent attacks.

Abdul Ghafoor Noori, owner of a transport firm in Kabul, said paying the insurgents makes business sense.

"I pay the Taliban not to attack my goods, and I don't care what they do with the money," he said laughing.

"If you don't, the next day your property is attacked and destroyed."


Don't worry.  Good Canadian money is being wasted in much the same way. 

 

[MarkOttawa]

Brian Platt, author of the (sporadic) Canada – Afghanistan Blog,
http://canada-afghanistan.blogspot.com/

is off--from The Ubyssey:

Why Afghanistan matters, and why I’m going
http://ubyssey.ca/opinion/platt-why-afghanistan-matters-and-why-i%E2%80%99m-going-there/

He'll be with Lauryn Oates of the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee:
http://afghanistan-canada-solidarity.org/if-nato-abandons-afghanistan-women-doomed

Mark
Ottawa

 

[zipperhead_cop]

The least shocking news item on this thread:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39646568/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
Afghans pay off Taliban with 'American money'
By Hamid Shalizi
Reuters 
KABUL, Afghanistan — Cash from the U.S. military and international donors destined for construction and welfare projects in restive parts of Afghanistan is ending up in the hands of insurgents, a contractor and village elders said.

The alliance of largely Western nations who back President Hamid Karzai and have nearly 150,000 troops on Afghan soil have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on aid and infrastructure since they ousted the Taliban from power in late 2001.

With violence spreading and the insurgency bloodier than ever, some construction firms and workers on development projects say they are having to hand over some of their earnings to insurgents to protect their personnel, projects or equipment.

Mohammad Ehsan said he was forced to pay insurgents a substantial part of a $1.2 million contract he won from the U.S. military two months ago to repair a road in Logar province south of Kabul, after they kidnapped his brother and demanded the cash.

"You know we need this American money to help us fund our Jihad," Ehsan quoted them saying when he eventually spent over $200,000 of the project money to secure his brother's freedom.

Ehsan said the insurgents also demanded the cash be changed out of dollars into Afghan or Pakistani currency, saying greenbacks are "Haram" or forbidden for Muslims.

Paying off militants is common across Afghanistan, where it is hard to work in villages or remote areas without greasing the palms of local insurgent commanders, said Ehsan.

"We are aware of those kind of reports ... contracting methods are definitely considered part of the counterinsurgency effort," said Major Joel Harper, spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, when asked about Ehsan's payment. "Such incidents would be investigated, and we have measures in place to try and prevent these things happening."

A U.S. Senate inquiry into private security firms contracting in Afghanistan found last week that funds had sometimes been funneled to warlords linked to insurgents , but did not look at other possible channels taking foreign money to insurgent groups.

The Taliban regularly attack supply convoys and development projects as well as military targets, but spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid denied the group extorts money from contractors, saying other elements may use the Taliban name to defame them.

"It is totally baseless, we don't need any money from any organizations that are linked to the invading force," he told Reuters by telephone from undisclosed location. "The people support us willingly and we will continue our Jihad against all occupying troops and their contractors."

But even elders from Provincial Development Shuras — traditional local councils adapted to foster development — that receive cash for small-scale projects in their villages, say they are not immune to the extortion.

"The Provincial Reconstruction Team gave me 500,000 Afghanis ($10,000) to clean sewers in my village but I was forced to pay 200,000 of it to the Taliban," said Aslam Jan from Logar's Baraki Barak district.

The U.S. government's aid arm USAID said it was aware of the risks from working in dangerous areas and worked to counter them.

"We take very seriously allegations that our funds are finding their way into the Taliban funds. We investigate each such allegation," USAID said in a statement.

Afghans who run transport businesses through volatile areas also prefer to pay off the Taliban rather than hire private guards who are often magnets for insurgent attacks.

Abdul Ghafoor Noori, owner of a transport firm in Kabul, said paying the insurgents makes business sense.

"I pay the Taliban not to attack my goods, and I don't care what they do with the money," he said laughing.
"If you don't, the next day your property is attacked and destroyed."

But don't worry.  There are hundreds of millions of Canadian dollars being mishandled and wasted too.  Perhaps performance evaluations and promotions at CIDA and DFAIT ought to rest less on dollars spent and on actual results? 
Ah! What am I thinking?  "Process over Product, ALWAYS"  

 

[The Bread Guy]

Harper's Afghan deadline dilemma
John Ivison, National Post, Oct. 26, 2010

Stephen Harper may get anuncomfortablereception from other world leaders at the NATO summit in Lisbon next month, unless he arrives armed with the news that the alliance wants to hear -- namely that Canada will commit to supplying 450 military trainers to school Afghan forces in Kabul after our combat mission ends next year.

Diplomatic sources say the Americans and the British in particular have been increasing the pressure on the Prime Minister to fill the shortfall of trainers needed to ease the transition from NATO troops to Afghan forces in 2014.

They are likely to be disappointed, unless the Prime Minister has a major change of heart. When Brigadier-General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Land Staff, was asked at a Senate defence committee hearing yesterday whether Canada would offer training capacity after 2011, he was blunt: "No, sir. Nothing."

"We can and will do anything the government asks us to do but at the moment we've been told to withdraw. Anything else is speculation," he said in an interview after his committee appearance.

The response from the Prime Minister's Office to NATO's request has been as consistent as it has been lacking in detail.

"We will respect the parliamentary motion and focus on development and humanitarian aid post-2011," said Dimitri Soudas, the Prime Minister's director of communications ....

More here - broken-record reminder that 2008 motion only says CF outta Kandahar in attached copy of motion.

 

[Edward Campbell]

But, see this. The Americans and Brits and other NATO nations don't vote in our general elections and Canadians have, in a large majority, given up on Afghanistan. They, most Canadians, want out: soon and completely.

Where the hell was NATO when we needed them in Kandahar? So, who gives a shit about NATO's wish list? We pretty much had this thing made in 2006/07 and we might have actually made it all work IF NATO, including especially the USA, had bellied up top the bar - but it (they) didn't and we are where we are: on our way out.

Sorry, NATO, Canadians want out and Prime Minister Harper will, almost certainly, give them what they want.

 

[The Bread Guy]

But, see thisWhere the hell was NATO when we needed them in Kandahar? So, who gives a crap about NATO's wish list? We pretty much had this thing made in 2006/07 and we might have actually made it all work IF NATO, including especially the USA, had bellied up top the bar - but it (they) didn't and we are where we are: on our way out.

Touché

 

[GAP]

NATO was quite willing to let Canada and some US and allies slug it out in Kandahar until Obama got into office and needed to be seen to be doing something useful in Afghanistan....the surge is strictly home grown politics on Obama's part, and has little to do with Afghanistan, except that happens to be where it is happening....

Harper was done a favor by the opposition parties. They gave him the out and he took it. All the whining and wringing of hands by the opposition about what to do now is laughable....

 

[Old Sweat]

Without waxing too eloquently, Canada fought the land battle of Panjwayi virtually by itself for most of the first three rotos. There were exceptions, but as far as I can determine the reinforcements never exceeded much more than a company in strength. At the same time, elements of the battle group were detached to other tasks such as reinforcing the Allied forces in the Sangin area or in the area of the Belly Button. With the enemy forced to disperse and lever the intensity down, we were then drawn into "whack a mole" for a lenghty period of time. For this we have been criticized for faulty tactics, when we had one battle group fighting in an area of operations that has now absorbed about a division's worth of Allies.

We do not need to be lectured by people that were quite prepared to see Kandahar defended to the last Canadian. Moreover we do not need to explain or apologize to them.

 

[CEhopeful]

We should be there because Canada has given too much to just pack up and leave, and hope the Taliban don't come out of the woodwork again in a year or two, and put Afghanistan and its people back at square one.  Far too many Canadians have paid the ultimate price, for our government to just decide that we are done there. Unfortunately there is much more fighting to be done there if we truly want to see a free Afghanistan.

 

[Big Red]

We should be there because Canada has given too much to just pack up and leave, and hope the Taliban don't come out of the woodwork again in a year or two, and put Afghanistan and its people back at square one.  Far too many Canadians have paid the ultimate price, for our government to just decide that we are done there. Unfortunately there is much more fighting to be done there if we truly want to see a free Afghanistan.

Come out of the woodwork? They are openly operating shadow government at every level, including most districts.

 

[OldSolduer]

We should be there because Canada has given too much to just pack up and leave, and hope the Taliban don't come out of the woodwork again in a year or two, and put Afghanistan and its people back at square one.  Far too many Canadians have paid the ultimate price, for our government to just decide that we are done there. Unfortunately there is much more fighting to be done there if we truly want to see a free Afghanistan.

Yes there is, and the majority of Canadians have no stomach for a prolonged fight, nor do they want, according to polls, Canadian soldiers hurting anyone.

This will take a generation or more to sort out. Start with the four year olds now, with education and not from any religious school. In 40 years it might start to turn around.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Brian Platt's visit blog at the Ubyssey, with lots of photos: 

From UBC to Kabul
http://ubyssey.ca/afghanistan/

Mark 
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Plus from Bruce R. at Flit (several internal links):

Things going well in Kandahar?
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_10_27.html#006793

I want to think things are going well in Kandahar Province as much as the next guy, but everyone reading these sorts of stories should really keep in mind it's simply way too early to tell. Violence always dies down to baseline levels this time of year, and the fighters always exfil to Pakistan for winter. This will be the fifth year in a row this pattern has been observed, and every time some reporters have claimed this was the beginning of the end. For instance, here's Matthew Fisher same time a year ago.

I hope that's not the case again. But what's needed is a comparison not between a peak and a trough in the violence, but between this trough and the previous troughs; and then, when spring comes, a comparison between that uphill curve and the previous ones. Saying "we're winning" in Kandahar in October is meaningless. We've always been winning... in October.

A more accurate assessment might be that ISAF has now recovered roughly the same position around Kandahar geographically as we had in late 2007 or early 2008, and this time with many more troops than before...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[The Bread Guy]

Better shared late than never - a Library of Parliament paper "Canadian Policy Toward Afghanistan to 2011 and Beyond:  Issues, Prospects, Options", dated 27 Sept 10 attached (English).

This, from the exec summary:

.... Canada is part of a much larger international endeavour in Afghanistan. Canadian decision-makers also face a daunting policy environment in which many factors are outside Canada’s control. At the same time, opinion surveys indicate a decline in public support for the current military mission and decreasing confidence in the outcome of the war, notwithstanding the large increases in U.S. troop deployments. According to one poll, a majority of Canadians foresee a Taliban role in a future Afghan government.

The results of the 2010 counter-insurgency campaign in Kandahar will be a crucial measure of progress toward achieving 2011 security objectives. As more U.S. troops have arrived, the Canadian Forces’ area of responsibility has been significantly reduced. Government policy calls for the transition to a completely civilian mission by the end of 2011.

Although no political party supports the extension of a combat role, the Liberal party has proposed continuing some Kabul-based training of Afghan security forces. A June 2010 Senate committee report recommended that training and mentoring of Afghan forces “must continue beyond 2011.” The options up for debate range from a total withdrawal of Canadian soldiers to the retention of a significant if limited Canadian military presence of a nature and duration to be determined.

What seems clear is that the size, and accordingly the costs in lives and money, of the Canadian military mission will be greatly reduced after 2011, if not eliminated entirely. The major emphasis will be on reconstruction, human development, institutional capacity and governance objectives, all of which will continue to receive Canadian government support. Security arrangements, perhaps involving a combination of other international troops and private contractors, will still need to be considered. Also at issue will be the levels and focus of civilian assistance. Reporting in June 2010 on its first trip to Afghanistan, the House special committee concluded that “we need a fresh framework for the period beyond 2011.”

Although some Canadians feel that we have done our share in Afghanistan, others argue that the job is unfinished and that Canada should increase its contribution in key areas such as education, professional development of the public service, and support for democratic processes. There is also a case for vigorous diplomatic efforts to be continued if Canada wishes to retain a significant voice in discussions over Afghanistan’s future.

By the end of 2011, Afghanistan will have been a top Canadian foreign and defence policy priority for a decade. That engagement will undergo a major transition in 2011, but many questions, especially about next steps, remain open ....

 

[MarkOttawa]

We, at least, have been doing our bit at KAF for a while (including hiring)--though the wind-up seems to be beginning a bit sooner than thought:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Afghan+combat+mission+wind+down+before+deadline/3765548/story.html

Allies Absent in Afghanistan - Helicopters Hired  
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Allies-Absent-in-Afghanistan-Helicopters-Hired-05366/

Contracts to firms in Canada, Colombia, and the USA. (Nov 1/10)

Afghanistan is shaping up as a test of the NATO alliance. Thus far, the report is mixed. While a number of allied countries have committed troops, very few of the NATO countries’ available helicopters have been committed, despite promises made and commanders’ requests from the field. At the moment, Britain, the Netherlands, and the USA still contribute most of the combat helicopter support in theater, alongside some CH-47s from non-NATO partner Australia. They are supplemented by helicopters from some east bloc countries like Poland and the Czech Republic (Mi-8/17s), and the very recent addition of a few CH-47D Chinooks and Bell 412ERs from Canada. The sizable helicopter fleets belonging to NATO members like France, Germany, Italy, and Spain have seen some use in Afghanistan, but the bulk of their use has been in areas away from the serious fighting in the south.

That is creating political tensions within the alliance, especially when set against the backdrop of European shortfalls in meeting NATO ISAF commitments. At one point, the USA was forced to extend the deployment of 20 CH-47 helicopters by 6 months, in order to try and make up the shortfall. Over the longer, term, however, a 2-track solution has emerged. Track one involves keeping up the pressure, and some members of NATO have responded. Track 2 has involved stanching the wound by chartering private helicopter support that can take care of more routine missions in theater, freeing the military helicopters for other tasks.

    * Contracts and Key Events [updated]
    * Additional Readings

Contracts and Key Events

Nov 1/10: Canadian Commercial Corp. in Ottawa, Canada wins a $65.7 million option year modification modification for helicopters and their associated personnel, equipment, tools, material, and maintenance to perform passenger and cargo air transportation services in Afghanistan [emphasis added]. [Oddly, nothing in the CCC Newsroom,
http://www.ccc.ca/eng/abo_newsroom_inTheNews.cfm.
could the government be trying not to draw attention to the deal?]

Canadian Commercial Corp. is an agency of the Canadian federal government, and is frequently listed as the contracting firm in place of Canadian firms like CHC. Canadian Helicopters, Ltd. is a firm that provides helicopter services for use in oil & gas, mining and forestry, emergency medical services, police support, and other tasks that include support for the Canadian Forces’ North Warning System. These industries and roles require flight into and through remote areas, while contending with difficult weather and terrain in order to get the job done. To that end, Canadian Helicopters operates a diverse fleet of Bell Textron, Eurocopter, and Sikorsky platforms. They also operate the Canadian Helicopters School of Advanced Flight Training, which trains elite military and police pilots as part of their customer base. According to the firm, the Commander of the US Navy Helicopter Special Warfare Squadron describes this training as “best in the world”[emphasis added].

The contract will run until Oct 31/11[emphasis added]. This contract was a competitive acquisition with 13 bids received by U.S. Transportation Command Directorate of Acquisition at Scott Air Force Base, IL (HTC711-10-D-R025)...

So Canadian (and other) civilians will be helping the US military--and probably Afghan Air Corps
http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/news/afghan-air-corps-reaches-new-heights.html
--chopper effort after the government pulls out most of the CF.  Nice.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[hippz]

My two cents: We shouldn't be there at all, and we should leave now. We didn't declare war in any way, we just invaded and occupied as if we were Germany in WWII. Plus, why do you really think they attack us? Because they hate our freedom, or because we've been there policing them and telling them how to live for 20+ years? I'm sure if Russia occupied Canada and set up bases in Ottawa and Vancouver, we'd retaliate. I know I would.

 

[GAP]

Thank you for your  :2c:

Now that you've spent your allowance, run along now.... :

 

[PMedMoe]

we just invaded

You might want to verify that.  We never invaded Afghanistan.  :

 

[Edward Campbell]

My two cents: We shouldn't be there at all, and we should leave now. We didn't declare war in any way, we just invaded and occupied as if we were Germany in WWII. Plus, why do you really think they attack us? Because they hate our freedom, or because we've been there policing them and telling them how to live for 20+ years? I'm sure if Russia occupied Canada and set up bases in Ottawa and Vancouver, we'd retaliate. I know I would.

You would do well to think, or at least read a bit, before you speak. We went to Afghanistan at the specific request of the United Nations Security Council that, in Resolution 1386 (2001), 20 Dec 01, said:

"The Security Council,

Reaffirming its previous resolutions on Afghanistan, in particular its resolutions 1378 (2001) of 14 November 2001 and 1383 (2001) of 6 December
2001,
...
Acting for these reasons under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Authorizes, as envisaged in Annex 1 to the Bonn Agreement, the establishment for 6 months of an International Security Assistance Force to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the personnel of the United Nations can operate in a secure environment;

2. Calls upon Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to the International Security Assistance Force, and invites those Member States to inform the leadership of the Force and the Secretary-General;

3. Authorizes the Member States participating in the International Security Assistance Force to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate;
..."


The UN did more than just "ask" us, it "called upon" us to join ISAF and go to Afghanistan and take "all necessary measures" to fulfill its mandate which was, in subsequent resolution expanded from "Kabul and its surrounding areas" to all of Afghanistan, including Kandahar.

Our current mission in Afghanistan is just a much a UN mission as a baby-blue beret wearing peacekeeping one. We are not occupying Afghanistan; we are there at the request of the elected Afghan Government and the United Nations.

That there are still Canadians who appear to believe that we are occupiers speaks volumes about:

a. the failure of successive Canadian governments to offer a clear, coherent explanation of why we are there;

b. the failure of the public education system to equip most Canadians to comprehend the information that is (fairly readily) available.

No one who can read at anything above about third grade level has any excuse for thinking believing we are occupying Afghanistan.


Edit: fixed hyperlink

 

[The Bread Guy]

You would do well to think, or at least read a bit, before you speak. We went to Afghanistan at the specific request of the United Nations Security Council that, in Resolution 1386 (2001), 20 Dec 01, said .....

To follow that up, the U.N. Security Council STILL wants ISAF there - latest unanimously-agreed-to resolution on that (dated 3 weeks ago) attached.

You might want to consider more reading and more thinking, hippz, before typing.