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

[Kirkhill]

Its OK Zell, I'll vouch for you...this time ;D

Where did our signaller friend go?

 

[MarkOttawa]

A letter of mine in the Ottawa Sun, April 25:
http://www.ottawasun.com/Comment/Letters/2007/04/25/4127902.html

In his letter of April 23, Albert Bertrand claims that the war in Afghanistan is about American "access to the petroleum from Central Asia." That is simply left-wing mythical nonsense.

Afghanistan has no relevance to access to central Asian oil. Most of that oil is in Kazakhstan, far to the west of Afghanistan, and Kazakhstan has no need for Afghanistan as a pipeline route.

Kazakh oil is exported via Russia and to China. It will now also be shipped, following an agreement with Azerbaijan last year, across the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan and onward by pipeline to a Turkish port on the eastern Mediterranean. Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan equally have no need for any Afghan pipeline should they ever become major oil exporters.

Mark Collins

(The facts don't matter to some people)

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

Funny how the defeatists never think of half the Afghan population (much les what will happen to 100% of them if we withdraw).

http://justbetweenusgirls.blogspot.com/2007/04/post-for-liberal-chicks.htm

A post for liberal chicks...
who think it's acceptable to play politics with our mission in Afghanistan.

Sally Armstrong is the author of Veiled Threat: The Hidden Power of the Women of Afghanistan and a senior writer and editor at magazines such as Chatelaine, Canadian Living, and Homemakers. From Straight.com on keeping the debate focused on Afghan women.

While Afghan women continue to be singled out for oppression by a violent corruption of Islam, the threat they face from countries like Canada lies in the confused political debates about western intervention in their country. Canadian women should keep the public debates focused on the women and girls of Afghanistan, Armstrong pleaded, and must also fight the stubborn attitude that Afghan women should be simply left to sort out their problems by themselves.

"I can't tell you how thoroughly surprised I am at this kind of commentary," Armstrong said. "Are we going to stand back and say, 'We only do peacekeeping'? I don't know where this stuff is coming from. From my experience, from when I was there, I think we're doing an unbelievable job." She agreed that it may be impossible to defeat the Taliban, militarily. Still, "We just have to beat them back and keep them in their caves."

Armstrong showed little patience for fashionably revisionist explanations for Canada's military mission in Afghanistan. She said Canadian soldiers are there at the invitation of the Afghan people, and we're there because we promised to help, and because, as 9/11 demonstrated, we have no choice.

Read the whole thing girls, as some of the boys seem to have lost their way.

 

[MarkOttawa]

This isn't going to help:

Afstan: French faltering?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/04/afstan-french-faltering.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Mark have you considered digging up any of the old news article when the Libs signed the prisoner exchange deal? Might be some nuggets there.

 

[stealthylizard]

We are there because we want to be would be my best answer.  Not to mention the thousands that have enlisted or are trying to enlist from the past couple years to the present want to go there, myself included.  Most people that get into the military do so for many reasons, and one of the most cited examples is world wide travel, as well as trying to make a difference in people's lives.  Both of which are being accomplished by the Afghanistan operations.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Colin P: If I have time but I don't remember reporting on it at the time.  There is this:

Embarrassment over detainees not new
Gaffe damaged Eggleton's standing with chretien [sic]
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b5c1c7c8-da64-471b-ac18-3c07120b5e7a

Mark
Ottawa

 

[observor 69]

Mark have you considered digging up any of the old news article when the Libs signed the prisoner exchange deal? Might be some nuggets there.

Signed by Gen.Hillier, 

Arrangement for the Transfer of Detainees Between the Canadian Forces and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

http://www.dnd.ca/site/operations/archer/agreement_e.asp

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

      To respond to the eternal whining of the left wing; we hand our prisoners over to the Afghan authorities because it is Afghanistan.  We are there to help and support the Afghan government in restoring the safety, security, and stability of the Afghan people; we are not there to take over.  If we were an occupying power, then our prisoners would be ours to dispose of, and Afghan law would be of no concern to us.  We are not an occupying power, but an allied military responsible for establishing the security of a region of Afghanistan, and helping to provide the structure for a the reestablishment (some would argue establishment) of proper self rule. The Afghans must deal with the captured insurgents in their own way, in order that the prisoners can be reintegrated into Afghan society.  As the Iraqi experience has shown, Islamic prisoners of western powers become more, not less of a problem upon release; and the goal must be to return the Afghan born insurgents to Afghan society.
      For those who point to the failure of Soviet armour in Afghanistan, were we employing Soviet armour or Soviet doctrine then this would be a concern, but we are not, so how is this relevant?  For those occasions where direct firepower is required, or for spearheading an assault of fixed positions, tanks mean fewer Canadian casualties.  Fewer, not none.  We are soldiers, not stock brokers, and our business involves risk every single day.  Tanks do not mean that no Canadian infantrymen will have to stand into danger, the mean that Canadian officers will have more tools to bring to bear, and that sometimes we can use a 105 HESH to kick in a defended door, rather than an Infantryman.

 

[McG]

NATO's Afghanistan effort at risk: officials
Updated Sat. Apr. 28 2007 3:36 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff

Allegations of torture, abuse and execution within the Afghan prison system will be investigated by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Afghanistan government, the head of NATO said Saturday.

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the secretary general of NATO, said during a security meeting in Brussels said NATO countries are in Afghanistan to "defend universal values," and the alleged abuse of prisoners handed over to Afghans is not acceptable.

De Hoop Scheffer was just one of a number of top security officials from NATO countries to voice an opinion on the situation in Afghanistan.

The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke, said NATO risks losing the war because of a "tremendous deterioration" in the popularity of the government of President Hamid Karzai -- the U.S. backed democratic leader of the country.

"Afghanistan represents the ultimate test for NATO,'' Holbrooke -- who recently toured Afghanistan -- told the Brussels Forum, an annual transatlantic security conference.

NATO has 36,000 troops in Afghanistan, including roughly 2,500 from Canada. In addition, the U.S. has deployed an additional 11,000 troops to the eastern border region with Pakistan -- an area thought to be an entry point for foreign combatants.

But despite the massive resources dedicated to the country, Taliban guerrillas have continued to increase their activities over the past year, in many cases trickling back into areas that were earlier cleared of militants.

Holbrooke Karzai's government has become unpopular because of corruption stemming from Afghanistan's drug problem.

"I have heard increasingly that the government has lost its momentum,'' he said.

"I can sense a tremendous deterioration in the standing of the government. Afghans are now universally talking about their disappointment with Karzai. Let's be honest with ourselves ... the government must succeed or else the Taliban will gain from it.''

Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, also attending the conference, spoke about the fragility of the operation.

"While I don't want to sound alarmist, I think there is going to be a tipping point unless we are able to stabilize (southern Afghanistan, especially), unless we are able to get on with building the economy, rule of law and government institutions," MacKay said.

In total, 54 Canadians soldiers have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion in 2002.

MacKay suggested Canada has carried an unequal share of the burden in Afghanistan -- particularly when it comes to combat operations -- and said Canada has been disappointed by the lack of solidarity with other NATO nations.

MacKay also called on Pakistan to do more to shut off the flow of illegal immigrants into Afghanistan.

Holbrooke, who is pegged by some to be named as the U.S. secretary of state if a Democratic president is elected, said U.S. efforts to train the Afghan police have fallen short of the mark, producing a corrupt, incompetent force.

DynCorp, a Virginia-based provider of security and defence services in Afghanistan and Iraq, among other trouble spots, took much of his scorn.

"The U.S. training program (for the police) under DynCorp is an appalling joke ... a complete shambles,'' he said.

In Canada, the federal government has faced intense questioning this week over its stance on the alleged abuse of detainees in Afghanistan -- amid mixed signals about whether the government was aware that such concerns existed about detainee transfers.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070428/afghan_efforts_070428/20070428?hub=TopStories

 

[MarkOttawa]

Afghanistan and Iraq: the same war
ChronicleHerald.ca, April 29
http://thechronicleherald.ca/print_article.html?story=832249

Four years ago, the U.S. and Britain unleashed war on Iraq, a nearly defenceless Third World country barely half the size of Saskatchewan. For 12 years prior to the invasion and occupation, Iraq had endured almost weekly U.S. and British bombing raids and the toughest sanctions in history, the "primary victims" of which, according to the UN Secretary General, were "women and children, the poor and the infirm." According to UNICEF, half a million children died from sanctions-related starvation and disease.

Then, in March 2003, the U.S. and Britain – possessors of more weapons of mass destruction than the rest of the world combined – attacked Iraq on a host of fraudulent pretexts, with cruise missiles, napalm, white phosphorous, cluster and bunker-buster bombs, and depleted uranium (DU) munitions...

An attack such as that on Iraq, neither in self-defence nor authorized by the United Nations Security Council, is, in the words of the Nuremberg Tribunal that condemned the Nazis, "the supreme international crime." According to the Tribunal’s chief prosecutor, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, such a war is simply mass murder.

Most Canadians are proud that Canada refused to invade Iraq. But when it comes to Afghanistan, we hear the same jingoistic bluster we heard about Iraq four years ago. As if Iraq and Afghanistan were two separate wars, and Afghanistan is the good war, the legal and just war. In reality, Iraq and Afghanistan are the same war.

That’s how the Bush administration has seen Afghanistan from the start; not as a defensive response to 9-11, but the opening for regime change in Iraq (as documented in Richard A. Clarke’s Against all Enemies). That’s why the Security Council resolutions of September 2001 never mention Afghanistan, much less authorize an attack on it. That’s why the attack on Afghanistan was also a supreme international crime, which killed at least 20,000 innocent civilians in its first six months. The Bush administration used 9-11 as a pretext to launch an open-ended so-called "war on terror" – in reality, a war of terror because it kills hundreds of times more civilians than the other terrorists do.

That the Karzai regime was subsequently set up under UN auspices doesn’t absolve the participants in America’s war, and that includes Canada. Nor should the fact that Canada now operates under the UN authorized International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mislead anyone. From the start, ISAF put itself at the service of the American operation, declaring "the United States Central Command will have authority over the International Security Assistance Force" (UNSC Document S/2001/1217). When NATO took charge of ISAF, that didn’t change anything. NATO forces are always ultimately under U.S. command. The "Supreme Commander" is always an American general, who answers to the U.S. president [so just ignore UNSC resoutions you don't like - MC] .

Canadian troops in Afghanistan not only take orders from the Americans, they help free up more U.S. forces to continue their bloody occupation of Iraq...

Canadians have traditionally been able to hold their heads high when they travel the world. We did not achieve that reputation by waging war against the world’s poor; in large part, we achieved it by refusing to do so.

Canada must – immediately, and at the minimum – open its doors to Iraqis and Afghans attempting to flee the horror being inflicted on their homelands. We must stop pretending that we’re not implicated in their suffering under the bombs, death squads and torture. This means refusing to lend our name, our strength and the blood of our youth in this war without end against the Third World.

Michael Mandel is an author and professor of international law at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. David Orchard is an author and Borden, Sask., farmer who ran twice for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative party.

Law professors of Canada unite! You have nothing to destroy but the Canadian Forces!
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/57191/post-561863.html#msg561863

Mark
Ottawa

 

[peaches]

And Canada....  The Islamic Republic Of Canada, the prof's should love it.  Perhaps we could convince the talibs to lop of thier heads first..... :threat: :threat:

 

[Flip]

From the two articles today I get the notion that Canada's lefties
are getting a little cocky about the success of America's lefties.

Everybody knows why the US pulled out of Vietnam.
We conveniently forget what happened next.
I'm not sure but I seem to recall the ensuing civil war killed
more people than the Vietnam war did. - correct me if I'm wrong.
The removal of US forces did not bring peace and stability.
The removal of US forces will not bring peace and stability
in Iraq or Afghanistan.

It seems OK on the surface to discredit GW Bush in the coming
liberal age of enlightenment - But how many people will be killed
by this kneejerk to the left?

I know - a purely rhetorical argument. I feel better now.

 

[TCBF]

"From the two articles today I get the notion that Canada's lefties are getting a little cocky about the success of America's lefties."

- Remember: Communism is an "International"

;D

- It was the US Democrats - in power in the early 60's - who engineered Diefenbaker's defeat and FUNDED Pearson's campaign.  Allegedly over "The Chief" going all wobbly and refusing the US warheads for the BOMARCs.

- Pearson - previously against the nukes, accepted.  This pee'd off Trudeau, who eventually suceeded in making the CF Nuke-Free when the Hornet replaced the Voodoo, some TWENTY YEARS later.

 

[a_majoor]

More news which is "not fit to print"; since it dosn't fit the MSM agenda:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006095

Taliban Jack

Call your office; http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/world/middleeast/27kabul.html

    KABUL, Afghanistan, April 26 — Infant mortality has dropped by 18 percent in Afghanistan, one of the first real signs of recovery for the country five years after the fall of the Taliban regime, health officials said Thursday.

    Afghanistan faces many challenges, its health minister said yesterday, but he noted “clear signs of health sector recovery and progress.”

    “Despite many challenges, there are clear signs of health sector recovery and progress throughout the country,” Dr. Muhammad Amin Fatimi, the health minister, told journalists here.

    The number of children who die before their first birthday has dropped to 135 per 1,000 in 2006 from 165 per 1,000 live births in 2001, according to a countrywide survey by Johns Hopkins University, he said.

    That represents a drop of 18 percent, and means that 40,000 to 50,000 fewer infants are dying now than in the Taliban era, Dr. Fatimi said. “Thanks be to God they are celebrating, laughing and smiling,” he said. “These infants are the future builders of our country.”


More good news of a different sort. http://www.powerlineblog.com/

    Dropping to 200ft, it swooped close to the motorcyclists - and the two men could not believe their luck: some of the passengers were holding the parts of a long-barrelled heavy machine-gun.

    Six of the bikes slewed to a stop, their passengers leaping off and aiming their weapons at the helicopter in what appeared to be a well-practised drill, while the others took off across country. The Apache banked away to begin its attack run.


Don't think of them as Black Hawks - think of them as flying neonatal units!

 

[MarkOttawa]

I wonder why this was on A12 in the Globe today, not the front page.

Small loans, big dreams
A microfinance agency run by an expatriate is helping Afghan women achieve financial stability
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070430/AFGHAN30/International/international/international/3/3/14/

Katrin Fakiri was eight years old when her family fled Afghanistan for the United States. Two decades later, she is one of thousands of ex-pats returning home to help rebuild a shattered economy -- one dollar at a time.

Ms. Fakiri is the managing director of Parwaz Microfinance Institution, a Canadian-backed, Kabul-based organization that gives $150 (U.S.) loans to women for businesses ranging from carpet weaving to bread baking.

The concept is sweeping through Afghanistan, with microfinance now reaching about 340,000 families across the country. Canada is the largest donor country to the sector, with a $40-million contribution to back various small-scale financial projects.

Yet hurdles linger in a country broken by years of conflict and war, where opium still accounts for one-third of the economy. Helping women become financially independent is a unique challenge.

"Women are at times limited by security and cultural traditions here, so they can't go out into the market and sell items," Ms. Fakiri said. "They can't be a shopkeeper, as they could in India or some other Asian countries." Thus a husband or son tend to sell the products.

A typical loan may see a woman buy a cow and use the milk to make yogurt, which the male family member will sell on the streets or to a merchant...

Parwaz is four years old and serves more than 8,000 clients, with a 99-per-cent repayment rate. It aims to reach full financial sustainability by 2009. One requirement of the program is that women save the equivalent of $1 a month.

It is one of 15 microfinance organizations funded by Microfinance Support Facility for Afghanistan, a multinational facility whose biggest backer is the Canadian International Development Agency. It is only two years old, but active in 21 provinces in every region in the country. The group estimates the potential market for microfinance clients at up to five million people.

Mary Coyle, director of the Coady International Institute in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, sits on MISFA's board and recently returned from a visit to Afghanistan.

"It's an incredible success story in the context of Afghanistan, where there are tremendous security difficulties as well as the fact that you're building up a system from scratch," she said...

"This is one of the poorest countries in the world. And the majority of people belong to the informal sector," Ms. Fakiri said. "Any vibrant economy is built on the backs of these small- or medium-sized businesses. So if we can support these microbusinesses, in a few years they can actually become small and eventually medium businesses. It will have huge impact on the economy."..

As for the Globe's front page:

'The Canadians try to kill everybody'
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/11/canadians-try-to-kill-everybody.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

A guest-post of mine at Daimnation!

Presenting the truth about Afghanistan
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009352.html

and a subsequent post by Damian Brooks at The Torch:

The principled left
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/04/principled-left.html

Do read Terry Glavin's own post (on which our posts above were based):

Canada and Afghanistan: The Vancouver Debate
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2007/04/canada-and-afghanistan-tyee-panel.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

Let's be clear who the "other side" really is:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009367

Monday, April 30, 2007
An Insider's Account of Friday's Cairo Debriefing

It is now abundantly clear that the core leadership of Canada’s so-called anti-war movement consists of obsessive Israel-haters, apologists for theocratic fascism, and admirers of the death cult Hamas and the totalitarian Hezbollah.

Nobody can accuse me of “smearing the peace movement” anymore. The leadership of the Canadian Peace Alliance, the Toronto Stop the War Coalition and other such groups now openly boasts of its progress in converting the “antiwar” movement in Canada into a joint venture with the Islamist far right.

Last Friday in Toronto, these people made a full and self-congratulatory accounting of themselves and the promises they made at the recent “anti-war” convergence in Cairo ("Towards an International Alliance Against Imperialism and Zionism"), attended by some of the world’s most foul jihadists, Islamists and Jewish-conspiracy fetishists.

The most enthusiastic accounts last Friday came from Abigail Bakan and Chantal Sundaram, senior members of the formerly left wing sect that runs the Canadian operations of the British Socialist Workers Party. The SWP is a Stalinist groupuscule that allied with the Muslim Council of Britain to take over the British “anti-war” movement and construct the base for the Mosleyite George Galloway and his “Respect” Party.

Bakan and Sundaram were preceded in their presentations by Cairo attendees (and fellow I.S. national steering committee members) Sid Lacombe, campaign coordinator for the “umbrella” Canadian Peace Alliance, and Toronto Stop the War Coalition spokesman James Clark, who is also a member of the CPA steering committee.

CPA steering committee member and Cairo attendee Ali Mallah also gave a glowing report about his guided tour of the illegal Hezbollah police statelet inside Lebanon, from which he returned only last Monday.

Cairo attendee John Riddell, who still fancies himself a “peace activist” gave a positively euphoric account of his personal transformation in Cairo (Riddell was a socialist back in the Vietnam era, and still masquerades as one), and I am pleased to see that he told the Thursday night Steelworkers Hall audience that he was most upset with my Georgia Straight column of last week.

All I have to say for now is, be very careful about what you say, comrades. It's just like this. I already know everything that each of you said last Thursday evening in Toronto. Every last word.

We'll be paying close attention to this, too.

 

[EOD4LIFE]

One thing we all need to remember is Afghanistan/middleeast has been at war in one way or another longer than any of us have been born, they were at war when our great grandfathers/grandfathers/fathers were young soldiers and boys, they are bread for War. If they can not be at war with the west, east, north, or south they will be at war amongst themselves. We are trying to change a way of life and trying to control a people who no nothing else...It is like trying to change a man eating tiger into a vegetarian.

I am not saying it is right or wrong. First and formost I am a solider, and I will/would not attempt to ponder to long outside of my bubble of knowledge. (A bubble which neither you, me nor the civilian population could probable comprehend or handle a magnitude beyond our realities of just making it home for your birthday...etc)
We are asked to fight and follow, however with free speech available to us, we border dangerously - daily - on contempt and insubordination's that would in most countries - such as those we fight and or protect - have us immediately killed.

PS I love this site, I have learned so much and do agree. all Canadians should read its contents, but only to appreciate us and what we do for them. This site is almost a method of making each and every one of us immortal, which is awesome cause all great super heroes are ...right?
LOL

Cpl Lisa Heck

"I AM CONVINCED THAT ADHERENCE TO A PHYSICAL FITNESS PROGRAM WILL NOT ONLY
INCREASE STRENGTH, ENERGY AND ENDURANCE, BUT ALSO IMPROVE AN INDIVIDUAL S
ABILITY TO COPE WITH MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL STRESSES. THIS IS LEADERSHIP BUSINESS,
AND I EXPECT THE SUPPORT OF LEADERS AT ALL LEVELS TO ENSURE THE CF IS FIT TO
FIGHT." 
General Rick Hillier.(CDS )DIRECTION FOR PHYSICAL FITNESS (CANFORGEN 198/05 CDS
104/05 211441Z DEC 05)

 

[GAP]

This article correctly points out some of the arguments of why we are in Afghanistan.

Another interesting recent CBC news documentary was on last night regarding the Indonesian Al Qaeda group and how one of their former leaders was turned. The most interesting item was that they were all trained in Afghanistan. This has been the case over and over regarding these operatives in many countries, and we wonder why we should be there?

Why Canada should stay
May 07, 2007 04:30 AM  Seth G. Jones
Article Link

Al Qaeda poses a threat to this country that will not decrease if we withdraw troops from Kandahar, says Seth G. Jones

There is a growing movement in Canada to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, illustrated by such newspaper headlines as: "Is it time to go?" and "Canada must leave Afghanistan." Such a move would be a tragic mistake. Withdrawing would be a severe blow to NATO's efforts in Afghanistan and would ultimately undermine Canada's own security.

There are at least three myths in the Canadian media that need to be dispelled.

The first myth is that Canada has no significant national security interests in Afghanistan. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Pakistan-Afghanistan front is the headquarters of Al Qaeda, which is a more competent international terrorist organization than it was on Sept. 11, 2001. It has close links with the Taliban and is led by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, who have been pivotal in the rise of suicide attacks against NATO soldiers in Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda possesses a robust strategic, logistics and public relations network in Pakistan, especially in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. This infrastructure has enabled it to play an important role in orchestrating international terrorist attacks. Canadian cities are also threatened. As an October 2006 Al Qaeda statement warned, Canada faces "an operation similar to New York, Madrid, London and their sisters, with the help of Allah."

Al Qaeda has been involved in an average of six major global attacks per year since 2002, up from one attack per year from 1995 to 2001. These attacks have spanned multiple regions, including Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa. It is also involved in hundreds of smaller attacks each year in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Al Qaeda's modus operandi has evolved and now includes a repertoire of more sophisticated improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks. Its organizational structure has also evolved, making it a more dangerous enemy. This includes a "bottom up" approach (encouraging independent thought and action from low-level operatives) and a "top down" one (issuing orders and coordinating a global terrorist enterprise with both highly synchronized and autonomous moving parts).

Al Qaeda poses a threat to Canada, which will not decrease if Canada withdraws. Canada's values are ultimately at odds with a terrorist organization that is committed to the restoration of the Caliphate in the Middle East and the establishment of a radical version of Islam. Al Qaeda needs to be destroyed, not appeased
More on link