• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

Based on my limited experience on the sending end of some federal documents through Access to Information, if it was requested through ATIP, it would certainly have had security, proprietary, third party or advice to Cabinet (I oversimplify the categories) information redacted, even if the SECRET stamp was still visible.  If that's the case, I believe whatever's left is OK for public consumption.

Also, don't forget that what can also happen is that a HUGE amount of paperwork from an ATIP request is sent out, and the reporter only writes about one document, or one paragraph in one document.  An example:  an ATIP request for information on a domestic CF operation contained something like 700 documents (including copies of duty logs and ROWPU water testing results on FMB pages - remember, EVERYTHING is a "record") on a CD ROM.  The MSM story out of that talked about how there were concerns in (maybe) less than a dozen e-mails about the mission being seen as a public relations exercise.  Don't know if the volume compares on this story, but thought you'd be interested in seeing how it sometimes works.  It's interesting that MSM talk about "documents obtained", but (in my experience) NEVER post the documents so the consumer can draw their own conclusions.

 
Sounds like part of a campaign plan to me - and this is a bad thing?
 
Hey, I'm all for easy-to-understand platforms from ANYONE.....

But is clarity too much to expect from government writing?  ;)
 
Extended Afghan mission planned, critics say
Opposition cites plans as proof troops will stay until 2011
GLORIA GALLOWAY
Article Link

OTTAWA -- Opposition MPs say documents generated by the Department of National Defence prove that the government intends to keep Canadian troops in Afghanistan long after the current commitment to the NATO-led force ends in 2009.

A communications plan drawn up by General Rick Hillier, the Chief of the Defence Staff, in May of last year outlines Canada's "five-year information strategy" for Afghanistan.

The opposition charges that the duration of the strategy indicates an intent to maintain a Canadian presence in the war-torn country until 2011.

And while Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said "we never leave until our work is done," briefing notes supplied to Defence Minister Dennis O'Connor suggest that the job won't be finished until late 2010.
More on link

 
GAP said:
Extended Afghan mission planned, critics say
Opposition cites plans as proof troops will stay until 2011
GLORIA GALLOWAY
Article Link

OTTAWA -- Opposition MPs say documents generated by the Department of National Defence prove that the government intends to keep Canadian troops in Afghanistan long after the current commitment to the NATO-led force ends in 2009.

A communications plan drawn up by General Rick Hillier, the Chief of the Defence Staff, in May of last year outlines Canada's "five-year information strategy" for Afghanistan.

The opposition charges that the duration of the strategy indicates an intent to maintain a Canadian presence in the war-torn country until 2011.

And while Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said "we never leave until our work is done," briefing notes supplied to Defence Minister Dennis O'Connor suggest that the job won't be finished until late 2010.
More on link

Damn those conservatives for saying what they mean! And PLANNING for it!!!! :o :o

 
Reccesoldier said:
Damn those conservatives for saying what they mean! And PLANNING for it!!!! :o :o

" And PLANNING for it!!!! "  Exactly, wouldn't any responsible CDS look long term at mission goals. What's the news story here ? I think we have already talked, in Army.ca, about the reasonable objectives to be reached before NATO could pull out.

Hey, ya work for the media ya gotta keep stirring the pot or you're out of a job.
 
Consider the source - can you say "Senlis"? 

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Afghan aid an exercise in 'feeling good'
John Ivison, National Post, 7 Feb 07
Article Link

Afghanistan is now the largest recipient of Canada's foreign aid, with the government committed to spending $100-million a year on reconstruction efforts there. Stephen Harper said in an interview published in the National Post yesterday that he believes we are "making progress," and hinted in a major speech at new initiatives to improve accountability in the rebuilding efforts.

Yet many people who have looked at the performance of the Canadian International Development Agency, through which the aid money flows, question whether this is just a "feel-good" exercise, as one person familiar with CIDA put it.

Critics argue that CIDA is little more than an automatic teller machine for agencies like the World Bank, who actually deliver the programs on the ground. A list of CIDA projects reveals it is already committed to spending $227.8-million on 41 different projects but has only a slight presence on the ground. By the admission of Josee Verner, the CIDA Minister, there are only 11 agency staff in Afghanistan. Sometimes the three based in Kandahar leave the Canadian Forces base "to take pictures of what we are doing," she said.

Norine MacDonald, the lead Afghanistan researcher for international think-tank Senlis Council, is based in Kandahar. "The impact of CIDA in Kandahar province is so minimal as to be non-existent," she said. "The first victims of this are the Canadian military personnel and, second, the Afghans."

A Senate defence committee report last fall made a similar point, calling CIDA activity "sparse." The committee called Ms. Verner to testify but said she was unable to provide details on how much aid was reaching Kandahar.

The committee concluded it was "unsatisfactory" that aid was distributed through multilateral agencies and the Afghan government, "which in its infancy has developed the reputation for some degree of corruption," since this made it "impossible to measure the success of Canadian development projects in Afghanistan."

"Giving it to third parties to use may or may not be efficient, may or may not be in Canada's interests or the interests of Canadian troops serving in Afghanistan," it said, before recommending that CIDA refocus its aid allocation so that most of it goes directly to development projects in Kandahar to be delivered by the military.

The Senate Foreign Affairs committee is set to report on CIDA's policy "failures" in Africa next week. One person familiar with the report said CIDA's problems are systemic and predicted the Afghan development story will turn out to be a "fiasco."

"No one will ever find out what happened to the money. It's all to make people feel good. It's a feel-good business."

These allegations are refuted by Ms. Verner. "We can be very proud of our programs," she said. "We are working closely with respectable organizations like the World Bank and we track the money very closely. We don't just write a blank cheque and say 'goodbye'."

She cited the microfinance investment program MISFA, which has given small loans to 300,000 Afghans to date, as an example of the type of project where Canada is playing a key role as the lead donor.

Independent third party analysis supports the view that some progress is being made. The Post-War Reconstruction and Development Unit of England's York University recently sent five regional assessment teams into the field to look at the success of the Afghan government's National Solidarity Program, to which Canada has contributed $13-million so far. The researchers found that there was "significant evidence" of increased public faith in the system

of government, thanks largely to the establishment of thousands of village-level community development councils. "There have been many years of war but the NSP gives us hope and we know the world is supporting Afghanistan," said one person interviewed by the team.

Yet, despite the mood of optimism, the York researchers lamented that this alternative vision of Afghanistan is rarely seen. "The media continues to dwell on the activities of four or five thousand Taliban insurgents in five of 34 provinces. It is therefore hardly surprising that public opinion polls in Britain, Canada, Japan and the U.S. should continue to report a growing disenchantment with humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan," the report concluded.

The Canadian media must take their share of the blame for their fixation on the military over the mundane details of micro financing. But successive Canadian governments have also been culpable, putting lacklustre ministers in a portfolio that demands a forceful pitchman or woman. Ms. Verner joined Cabinet more for reasons of gender and geography than her ability to sell the Afghan mission to Canadians, and she can thank her lucky stars that the Prime Minister sacked Environment Minister Rona Ambrose last month--an admission of one bad Cabinet pick was seen as unlucky, two would've been considered careless.

Ultimately, the long-term success of the Afghan mission will be determined by whether Canadians believe it is making things better.

Canada has buried its war dead -- 44 soldiers and one diplomat -- as part of a mission the Prime Minister has described as "noble."

Canadians have always shown themselves to be prepared to endure tragedy, as long as it can be demonstrated the sacrifice is not in vain. In the battle for hearts and minds, the Harper government would be advised to look closer to home.

Jivison@nationalpost.com


 
milnewstbay said:
Norine MacDonald, the lead Afghanistan researcher for international think-tank Senlis Council, is based in Kandahar. "The impact of CIDA in Kandahar province is so minimal as to be non-existent," she said. "The first victims of this are the Canadian military personnel and, second, the Afghans."
This sensationalizes the issue a little more than is fitting.

I will admit that I was a little underwhelmed with the work of CIDA while I was over (though that is starting to have been a while ago & I hope things improved in the last few half year).  I am fully behind the military security & reconstruction mission, but it may very well be true that better "synergy" is required between military & CIDA (and this should be happening in the Kandahar PRT).
 
There is a bit of a dilemma.  CIDA is not famous for good programme delivery so, in an effort to spend Canadians’ money wisely, they contract out to agencies, like the World Bank, which are good at delivery.  Then they get rapped for not doing enough - people, mainly journalists, need to see the Canadian flag, etc; without it they cannot say ”here’s how your (Canadian taxpayers) money is being spent.”

If we want to show Afghans and Canadians that Canada is helping then we probably have to settle for some (greater) degree of waste and bureaucratic ineptitude.

I can say, from hands on experience in 2003, that the World Bank was doing some very good work - using Canadian money and Canadian expertise, contracted/arranged by CIDA, amongst others.  But, they were World Bank projects - no big Canadian flag to wave at the taxpayers.

----------

P.S. The work in which I was involved was advisory; we did not go to Afghanstan - we advised Afghans in the comfort of our offices in Canada and in the offices of other contributors in London.  It made much better use of our time and Canada's money - it was more efficient and effective to bring a few Afghans to Canada than to send several Canadians to Kabul.
 
CBC News: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/12/senate-defence.html

Canada must send more personnel to Afghanistan and increase development funding, says a Senate defence committee report to be published Monday.

The report will recommend Canada send additional police and military trainers to Kandahar to help boost the country's fledgling army and police force.

It recommends Ottawa provide millions more in development aid for the military until aid groups can set up in the wartorn region.

The defence committee report also criticizes NATO countries for failing to provide enough military support to Canadian troops, who, along with the Americans, British and Dutch, are working in the volatile southern region.

Canadian and NATO leaders have repeatedly called on member countries to send more troops to the country to help battle Taliban militants and their supporters.

Members of the Senate defence committee visited the more than 2,000 Canadian soldiers serving in the Kandahar region last December.

Since the mission started in 2002, 44 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan.

 
Senate report takes 'hard look' at Afghanistan
Updated Mon. Feb. 12 2007 9:35 AM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

A hard-hitting Senate report, set for release Monday, is calling on Ottawa to send more development aid as well as police and military trainers to Afghanistan.

The 11-point strategy, titled "Taking a Hard look at a Hard Mission," reads as a blunt assessment of Canada's role in Afghanistan.

The report, obtained in advance by the Toronto Star, calls for 60 more Canadian police officers -- up from the 10 currently there -- and 250 Canadian troops to help train law enforcement officers and the Afghan National Army.

It also says Ottawa needs to warn its NATO allies that Canada will rethink its commitment in Afghanistan if other countries don't send more troops.

"It is... doubtful that the mission can be accomplished given the limited resources that NATO is currently investing," it says.

On development, the Senate defence committee says $20 million a year must be given to the military until aid groups are able to operate safely in the country.

"The combination of too many lives being lost and too little development assistance... contributes to making life bleak and dangerous in the Kandahar region," says the report.

The committee also accuses the Afghan government of rampant corruption. It demands that President Hamid Karzai implement a "comprehensive, transparent and effective plan" to reduce corruption.
More on link
 
Here's a link to the report:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/repfeb07-e.pdf

and the executive summary
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/ExecSumRepFeb07-e.pdf

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Canadian Troops in Afghanistan:  Taking a Hard Look at a Hard Mission
An Interim Report of the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence


This report examines some of the challenges that Canada’s current mission to Afghanistan is up against. The report makes a series of recommendations as to how to improve the mission’s chance of success.

Members of the Committee see the report as a contribution to what we believe should be a national debate on Canada’s deployment to Afghanistan.  It is important that Canadians support our troops in Afghanistan. It is also important that Canadians monitor the successes and failures of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan to help them advise politicians on the conduct and future of that mission.

If the Canadian mission is to succeed, it will have to overcome a number of formidable obstacles. While the Committee is not certain that those obstacles will eventually diminish to the point that the mission can be declared a success, we believe that there are ways of improving the odds.

Our recommendations are directed toward that end. Given that Canada is committed to its military deployment in Afghanistan until February 2009 – and given that it is also committed under “The Afghanistan Compact” until February 2011 to participate with 40 other countries in the overall rehabilitation of Afghanistan – the Committee calls upon the Government of Canada to do everything possible to improve the prospects of success in Afghanistan.

The Committee Recommends That:

1. the Government of Canada continue to apply pressure on its NATO allies to provide additional troops to assist in the training of the Afghan National Army through the use of Operational Mentor Liaison Teams.

2. the Government of Canada send up to 250 additional Canadian Forces instructors when an increase in the number of Afghan National Army trainees in Kandahar requires an expansion of the Canadian Operational Mentor Liaison Teams.

3. the Government of Canada provide up to 60 Canadian police trainers in addition to its current contingent of approximately 6 officers (soon to be 10) to help train the Afghan National Police and its Auxiliary.

4. the Government of Canada significantly augment the $10 million contribution announced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in January
2007 to provide uniforms and, for future years, to improve benefits and salaries for the Afghan National Police.

5. the Government of Canada, in order to minimize civilian casualties, continue with the “gentle approach” of providing advance warning to
civilians of forays against Taliban fighters, as successfully used in Operation Baaz Tsuka.

6. the Government of Canada should announce that while it understands that Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan is long term, it will be forced to reconsider its commitment unless NATO, within the next 12 months, puts into place in Kandahar a significantly larger and fully-engaged stability force.

7. in the next year and in subsequent fiscal years, until NGOs are able to safely function in Kandahar, CIDA provide from its budget $20 million directly to the Canadian Forces for their use in local development projects by Afghans.

8. the Government of Canada advise the Karzai government that it must, within the next 12 months, present to NATO a comprehensive,
transparent and effective plan to reduce corruption as a condition of Canada’s continued long term commitment in Afghanistan.

9. to effectively stop Taliban infiltration, the Government of Canada, with its NATO partners and Afghanistan, establish a defensible buffer zone in Afghanistan on the Afghan side of its border with Pakistan.

10. the Government of Canada increase agricultural and commercial assistance to help Afghan farmers in their transition from growing
poppies to cultivating legitimate alternative crops.

11. the Government of Canada, in conjunction with Afghan authorities, should engage our special forces and RCMP intelligence gathering
expertise in an accelerated program of interdiction, targeting drug lords and their distribution systems in order to quell the trade of narcotics.

- 30 -
 
Here's how the MSM is reporting the Senate report

Strange, it sounds an awful lot like the stuff I have been reading here.....

Afghan peace will take generations: report
TENILLE BONOGUORE  Globe and Mail Update
Article Link

Canada must demand more help from NATO or get ready to leave Afghanistan say the authors of a Senate committee report that warns peace in the war-torn nation is a still generations away.

In a frank 16-page interim report, the Senate committee on national security and defence says more troops, more money and a bigger commitment from other NATO countries must be gained within a year.

Publicly releasing the report on Monday, Senate committee chair Colin Kenny said Canada should expect its allies to step up to the challenge. If that doesn't happen, he says Canada must “take another look” at its mission.

“We cannot stay there forever,” Mr. Kenny said. “The solution has to be in us helping the Afghans solve their problem, and our efforts have to be driven towards that.

“But as the report says, that is going to take an extraordinarily long period of time, a significantly greater effort by the allies, and a great deal of money.”
More on link

 
More MSM coverage, from the News Only Thread:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/57138/post-527037.html#msg527037

Gotta love Al Jazeera - taking a "should get outta AFG" and making it a "could get outta AFG"....
 
milnewstbay said:
More MSM coverage, from the News Only Thread:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/57138/post-527037.html#msg527037

Gotta love Al Jazeera - taking a "should get outta AFG" and making it a "could get outta AFG"....

Translation difficulties donchano.

How to explain all those Canadian articles that say the Senate reports that Canadians SHOULD be withdrawn - when it is clear that the Senate is recommending it as a negotiating tactic to ge more NATO troops on the ground?
 
Let me see, more military and Police? and where pray tell will they becoming from? Most police forces are screaming for people, the military can barely train itself, let's just bite the bullet and raise our own Gurkha battalion. I am sure they will be culturally sensitive to the needs of the Taliban.  ;D
 
Personally I think Gurkhas would make great Canadian citizens......
 
I am actually quite impressed with the recommendations.  They seem rather sound and sane and able to be implemented with a bit a work and faill in line with the Govt. approach actuall.

This one gives me a bit of humour though:
6. the Government of Canada should announce that while it understands that Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan is long term, it will be forced to reconsider its commitment unless NATO, within the next 12 months, puts into place in Kandahar a significantly larger and fully-engaged stability force.

All those years Canada sat on its soft arse while other nations put the money and effort into keeping sizable and upto date deterant forces in NATO makes this a kind of two faced statement.

 
As someone who is inherently anti-Senate, I view anything from this body with suspicion and skepticism - so view my comments accordingly. Having looked at the biographies of most of the Senators involved, I'm not particularly impressed by their credentials to make recommendations to the PMO, the military, DFAIT, or CIDA.

milnewstbay said:
1. the Government of Canada continue to apply pressure on its NATO allies to provide additional troops to assist in the training of the Afghan National Army through the use of Operational Mentor Liaison Teams.

Sounds good - nothing to really argue with here, but nothing new either.

milnewstbay said:
2. the Government of Canada send up to 250 additional Canadian Forces instructors when an increase in the number of Afghan National Army trainees in Kandahar requires an expansion of the Canadian Operational Mentor Liaison Teams.

250? Where did the Senatorial Field Marshals come up with this? Where will the CF find 250 instructors? We can barely train the Canadian Army, I don't think another 250 is a realistic plan. If it was feasible to expand the training teams, I'm sure the staffs at CEFCOM and the commanders in theatre would have tried it.

milnewstbay said:
3. the Government of Canada provide up to 60 Canadian police trainers in addition to its current contingent of approximately 6 officers (soon to be 10) to help train the Afghan National Police and its Auxiliary.

I must admit to being a little shocked there are so few police officers there - I assumed it was more, so kudos to the Committee to bringing attention to this. If the RCMP and local police forces of Canada can find 60 volunteers, by all means - they are needed.

milnewstbay said:
4. the Government of Canada significantly augment the $10 million contribution announced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in January
2007 to provide uniforms and, for future years, to improve benefits and salaries for the Afghan National Police.

That's a fair chunk of change - and it buys a whole lot of uniforms. Sounds good, but perhaps first the corruption needs to be settled first (see point 8 ). Or, we can supply them with surplus Canadian gear, or have a Canadian firm make a few million bucks worth of uniforms for them.

milnewstbay said:
5. the Government of Canada, in order to minimize civilian casualties, continue with the “gentle approach” of providing advance warning to
civilians of forays against Taliban fighters, as successfully used in Operation Baaz Tsuka.

Thank-you Rideau Armchair Generals. I don't think the Canadian Army needs a reminder from the Senate to avoid killing civilians. I'd leave this area to the on-scene commanders.

milnewstbay said:
6. the Government of Canada should announce that while it understands that Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan is long term, it will be forced to reconsider its commitment unless NATO, within the next 12 months, puts into place in Kandahar a significantly larger and fully-engaged stability force.

I'm not sure Canada has the clout to stand up and make a stand like that. Are we going to backout of our commitment, leave our Allies Britain and America hanging, just because (shockingly!) Europe didn't pay up? Lesson learned for next time - go to war with the US and UK, not France and Spain.

milnewstbay said:
7. in the next year and in subsequent fiscal years, until NGOs are able to safely function in Kandahar, CIDA provide from its budget $20 million directly to the Canadian Forces for their use in local development projects by Afghans.

Excellent point. I don't like seeing the CF as a development agency, but if NGOs and CIDA can't do the job, the military has too.

milnewstbay said:
8. the Government of Canada advise the Karzai government that it must, within the next 12 months, present to NATO a comprehensive,
transparent and effective plan to reduce corruption as a condition of Canada’s continued long term commitment in Afghanistan.

Easier said than done. A good goal, but probably beyond what we can reasonably expect of the Karzai government given the patchwork of loyalties, ethnicities, and clans that make up the country and form the government. If this is a measure of success, we're doomed to fail. I'd be happy if they stop shooting at each other and stop supporting the Taliban - corruption is a secondary issue, until the shooting stops.

milnewstbay said:
9. to effectively stop Taliban infiltration, the Government of Canada, with its NATO partners and Afghanistan, establish a defensible buffer zone in Afghanistan on the Afghan side of its border with Pakistan.

"Defensible Buffer Zone"? Like the DMZ in Korea? Is this a free fire zone? a belt of mines? The area is already isolated, devoid of law and order, and lacking basic infrastructure - what more do they want? This idea may have appeared to be pure genius when looking at the map from Dubai, but it seems a little silly in reality.

milnewstbay said:
10. the Government of Canada increase agricultural and commercial assistance to help Afghan farmers in their transition from growing
poppies to cultivating legitimate alternative crops.

We - the Military, Canada, or NATO - can't replace the role the poppy plays in the economy of some regions of Afghanistan, and any attempt to do so can only destablize the country. The idea floated earlier in the year, of developing opium production towards pharmaceutical use, seems a much better plan.

milnewstbay said:
11. the Government of Canada, in conjunction with Afghan authorities, should engage our special forces and RCMP intelligence gathering
expertise in an accelerated program of interdiction, targeting drug lords and their distribution systems in order to quell the trade of narcotics.

While I'm in favour of an increased role for the RCMP in the theatre, I don't see how "RCMP intelligence gathering" techniques are particularly suited to Afghanistan. This isn't like tracking grow ops in BC, or tracing organized crime links in Quebec. Where the poppy fields are is pretty obvious, and I don't think the soldiers in the region are ignorant of who owns them, moves them, and profits from them. And if the Canadian troops don't know, their Afghan counterparts probably do. The problem is the guys who shoot at you when you start burning the poppies...
 
Back
Top