• 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

A post at The Torch:

Baby steps for NATO on Afstan
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/10/baby-steps-for-nato-on-afstan.html

Mark
Ottawa

 
A letter of mine in the Globe and Mail:

The next President Clinton
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20071029/COLETTS29-8/Letters/commentLetters/commentLetters/4/4/16/

MARK COLLINS

October 29, 2007 - page A22

Ottawa -- John Ibbitson, in his informative essay A Superpower Overstretched, But Surprisingly United (Globe Essay - Oct. 27),
http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20071027/COESSAY27/Comment/comment/comment/4/4/10/

points out the likely continuities in U.S. foreign policy if a Democrat, especially Hillary Clinton, becomes the next president. It is odd, however, that he does not mention her policy on Afghanistan, the issue likely of most concern to Canadians. In the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, Senator Clinton wrote that "our military effort must be reinforced."
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601-p30/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html

I wonder how our opposition politicians, many of our pundits and the Canadian people will react to that position.

Mark
Ottawa
 
A good piece from The Torch, which provides a timeline of our operations in Kandahar and explains the reasoning behind Operation Medusa and why the PRT came into its own afterwards:

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/

The timeline to the real progress being made at Kandahar

Read this excellent article, "Reflections on Canada’s first 18 Months in Kandahar and Prospects for the Future" (p.10 at link), in the Autumn 2007 issue of On Track, published by the Conference of Defence Associations Institute. Some excerpts:

Most importantly, my [Dr. Lee Windsor, Deputy Director, Gregg Centre for the Study of War and Society, University of New Brunswick] research involved a three week stay in Kandahar in April 2007 to experience the challenges Canadian soldiers face on the ground. There I spoke to Canadian soldiers and government officials, NATO partners, leaders from the aid agency community, and Afghans. I also had the unfortunate opportunity to witness the daily threats and strain endured by our soldiers when one convoy I hitched a ride with was ambushed and another struck by a suicide car bomb that killed eight Afghan civilians.

One of the most obvious preliminary findings is that public discussion over the mission is based on little hard and timely information about what is happening
on the ground, especially because the situation is both complex and rapidly evolving. Debate in Canada is based on a perception of life in Kandahar that is out of date.
What is needed is a historical timeline of the past 18 months and of what has been accomplished to date...

On the matter of expanding ISAF throughout Afghanistan, evidence suggests that NATO nations decided together that the best combination of forces for the difficult Kandahar job was the old Dutch-British-Canadian team that worked so well as Multi-National Division South West in Bosnia [emphasis added]. Having the most modern and robust vehicle fleet and being highly interoperable with US forces, Canada was a natural choice to deploy first.

The story of the first Canadian rotation into Kandahar is one of managing a demanding handover from American forces as Operation Enduring Freedom ramped down, paving the way for Dutch and British contingents to flow into Helmund and Uruzgan Provinces. The Canadian Provincial Reconstruction Team started in Kandahar City in 2005, taking steps to replicate the nation-building effort that worked in northern Afghanistan...

...When aid and reconstruction did appear on the horizon on a large scale in 2006, it posed a massive threat to the dominance of the Taliban in their heartland. It offered people hopes of stability and thus threatened absentee landlords and drug gangs who controlled them; these power brokers thrived in the lawless south and provided the Taliban with most of their operations budget. Reconstruction, especially of the road network and water management system, provided an end to a dependence on poppy growing by tenant farmers and threatened the power of feudal drug lords over their serfs, thereby threatening Taliban funding. As a result, it appears the reconstruction effort was directly targeted by militants.

After the much revered Foreign Service Officer Glyn Berry was killed in those early attacks, CIDA and Foreign Affairs pulled out of the city. The PRT ceased to function for a few months in early 2006 as the nonuniformed Canadian departments scrambled to reassess their prospects. By summer 2006 the Canadian Battlegroup returned to the Kandahar city area to restore security; CIDA returned, a new and highly capable Foreign Service officer was assigned, and the PRT was poised to restart operations. Before it did, and much to everyone’s surprise, a new and greater threat appeared.

A large Taliban force massed west of the city, apparently preparing for a major offensive and testing international resolve. The goal, it seemed, was to prove to Kandaharis that Canada and NATO was unwilling to fight to protect them and that the only future possible was under Taliban rule. The result was Operation Medusa, the systematic effort to defeat the Taliban force in Zhari and Panjwai Districts and prevent it from interfering with the restoration of civil society and reconstruction. No one anticipated that Canada’s reconstruction effort would require a conventional battle to launch it...

...had the 1RCR [1st Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment] not defeated the Taliban in Pashmul, reconstruction efforts under the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan would have ended permanently.

The defeat of the main Taliban force at Pashmul altered the political and social landscape in Kandahar by dramatically improving the credibility of the international
community among locals. As a result Canada’s third rotation to Kandahar that arrived in February 2007 could finally proceed as planned, with all mission components carrying out their assigned tasks. This fundamental timeline is apparently not understood in Canada, where impatience is rife at the perceived slow progress of the mission [emphasis added].

Only in the past six months was the Battlegroup, based on 2nd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment, able to push presence and security patrols outward into the most important agricultural and population areas around the river-centered ancient irrigation system. In effect, they have created a security bubble outside Kandahar City. Currently, the latest Battlegroup, based on 3rd Battalion of the Royal 22é Régiment, continues to protect and expand that bubble.

This security bubble was greatly enhanced in the past months with the arrival of soldiers and aid workers from a number of NATO and UN members in all provinces in the south. Growing international presence and improved professionalism and capability among the Afghan National Army is driving the Taliban into increasingly remote areas. In their absence aid and reconstruction work has increased...

Small numbers of hardcore Taliban and foreign fighters still try to disrupt NATO efforts. However, for the most part, calm and prosperity is returning inside the Kandahar Afghan Development Zone. So too are the aid agencies. In addition to Canadian, American and British government aid agencies, Mercy Corps, Oxfam, the Red Cross, a variety of UN elements, the World Food Program, and even Sarah Chayes’ Arghand Cooperative are all delivering short-term aid and long-term development projects throughout the area [emphasis added]...

The operational concept behind the Canadian security and reconstruction mission achieved traction in February 2007. Since then, NATO and the UN have made monumental strides forward as additional forces and development resources pour into the south, multiplying security and assistance capacity threefold from where it was but a year ago.

The debate over whether Canada should continue its role in Afghanistan is critical to the functioning of our democracy. The picture painted by the popular press and many critics, of a high blood price paid for minimal signs of progress, is misleading. Those weighing the merits of the mission must do so with a clear understanding that the sacrifices to date have borne significant fruit.
 
A doomsayer refuted:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2007_10_29.html#006279

Michael Yon, today:

"Iraq is looking better month by month. But at the current rate, surely we shall fail in Afghanistan."

Michael Yon, very close to a year ago:

"Mark this on your calendar: Spring of 2007 will be a bloodbath in Afghanistan for NATO forces. Our British, Canadian, Australian, Dutch, and other allies will be slaughtered in Afghanistan if they dare step off base in the southern provinces, and nobody is screaming at the tops of their media-lungs about the impending disaster. I would not be surprised to see a NATO base overrun in Afghanistan in 2007 with all the soldiers killed or captured. And when it happens, how many will claim they had no idea it was so bad and blame the media for failing to raise the alarm? Here it is: WARNING! Troops in Afghanistan are facing slaughter in 2007!"

All this was wrong, of course, and thankfully so. With the season winding down, there have been 155 NATO combat fatalities to date in Afghanistan in 2007, up from 130 last year. In Regional Command-South, which Yon was referring to, the number has gone up from 83 to 91 with two historically fairly quiet months to go, but that's entirely due to one province, Helmand, where fatalities went from 30 to 50. In all the other southern provinces, combat fatalities (so far, knock on wood) are down so far from last year, with Kandahar province, where the Canadians have the lead, falling from 38 NATO KIA a year ago to 29 this year. Not miraculous, but not disastrous, either.

The increase in NATO KIAs, broken out by NATO regional command, actually looks like this, with the difference from last year given in parentheses:

RC South: 91 (+8)
RC East: 48 (+10)
RC West: 6 (+5)
RC North: 4 (+4)
Kabul: 6 (-2)

As one can see, the year has been more violent throughout Afghanistan for NATO (although to be fair many provinces still haven't seen a single NATO fatality), but in absolute terms the increase is at least as due to increased fighting in the American-run RC-East as it is to the fight in the south. Hmm. Wonder if anyone predicted that?

It would be nice if Yon first acknowledged that he hasn't been batting 1.000 so far in his reading of the war-that-isn't-Iraq, before making any new predictions about it.

Kind of reminds one of "the brutal Afghan winter".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/01/12/do1202.xml

Mark
Ottawa
 
Ten years' minimum for foreigners:

Afghanistan at the Brink
NY Times, Roger Cohen, Nov. 1
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/opinion/01cohen.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
...
Since the Taliban’s fall in 2001, four million Afghan refugees have come home in one of the biggest post-1945 returns of people. About 38 percent of school students are girls, up from zero. Roads, clinics, mine-clearing and several million cellphones are changing Afghan lives.

All this may seem a decent return on about $22 billion of American investment since 2002. A further $5.6 billion is under review for 2008. The strategic aim is a stable Afghanistan that is no longer for rent by terrorists from one-eyed mullahs.

But if Afghanistan is not Iraq, it’s not delivered from war either. Lebanon looks stable by comparison. Like Poland, Afghanistan has suffered the fate of a weak state between powerful neighbors. Unlike Poland, it grows poppy and inhabits a region of explosive volatility.

That’s the bad news.

I heard many assessments of how long Afghanistan will depend on Western military assistance, but Abdul Jabbar Sabit, the attorney general, was bluntest: “The Afghan Army will not be able to defend the country for 10 years, so the international force has to be here for at least a decade.”

He’s realistic. An intense U.S. effort is going into producing a credible 72,000-man Afghan Army by 2009. The number may be met, but the force’s ability to sustain itself and mount large operations will lag. Capt. Sylvain Caron, a Canadian “mentoring” a nascent battalion, said “the cultural change will take 20 years [emphasis added].”..

Mark
Ottawa

 
Good post Mark

Is Afghanistan capable of providing 72000 soldiers by the end of 2009?  Probably
Can the junior & senior leaders of the new ANA be brought up to scratch - in all facets of modern doctrine & operations? probably NOT!
This is not something you can do overnight - and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you a bill of goods!
 
geo said:
This is not something you can do overnight - and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you a bill of goods!

Not overnight, just by the end of TF 3-08.  No big deal, right?  :P
 
Truthfully, if we are there to help rebuild the nation then so be it, as long as its warrented by their government. If we are asked to stay to make sure they thrive then we should, we should feel it necessary as it would embodie all the virtues we hold dear. It is one thing to help stabilize a country , than it is to occupy. Which the vast majority of the uneducated (on the subject that is) civilian population seems to think is happening.
 
JBoyd said:
Truthfully, if we are there to help rebuild the nation then so be it, as long as its warrented by their government. If we are asked to stay to make sure they thrive then we should, we should feel it necessary as it would embodie all the virtues we hold dear. It is one thing to help stabilize a country , than it is to occupy. Which the vast majority of the uneducated (on the subject that is) civilian population seems to think is happening.

Dude, pop smoke and bail while you can. 
 
Time lines I have used when speaking in public:

ANA: Two battalions on the ground in Kandahar today, expected to rise to 5 by the end of this ROTO (for people versed in military matters I explain these are essentially "motor" battalions with rifles and light/medium arms).
ANA Full control of Afghanistan: A decade
Microcredit programs to show effective results: 2-5 years while these women learn their trade and make a profit
Education: 10 years for the 6 million children to graduate and begin taking higher education or technical training
Higher education: 10 more years to reach critical mass of trained and educated professional and technical personnel
Rebuilding a nation: 20 years for Germany and Japan

Lots of work to do, and we should be there all the way since we essentially pledged ourselves for the task in 2002. The field force might not be needed after 2011 (maybe sooner, maybe later), but the other two "D"'s will need to keep going for decades to come.
 
JBoyd said:
Truthfully, if we are there to help rebuild the nation then so be it, as long as its warrented by their government. If we are asked to stay to make sure they thrive then we should, we should feel it necessary as it would embodie all the virtues we hold dear. It is one thing to help stabilize a country , than it is to occupy. Which the vast majority of the uneducated (on the subject that is) civilian population seems to think is happening.

I think JB is actually trying to express a reasonable point of view here: it's pretty close to our official position on why Canada is there. And yes--it is one thing to be there to help stabilize, and quite another to be there just as an occupation force (although the two might not be automatically exclusive if the occupation force behaves itself and works toward stability and handover instead of just domination). JB just needs to tighten up his style a bit.

Cheers
 
pbi said:
....JB just needs to tighten up his style a bit.

Cheers

Good point pbi. I withdraw the snarky smiley.
 
Blowing Up Statues Of The Buddha All Over Again
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2007/11/blowing-up-statues-of-bhudda-all-over.html

In the shoddy, shallow, squalid and grotesquely politicized "debate" in Canada about Afghanistan and the role of our military there, the one question that matters more than any other is how we can prevent the return of this kind of savagery, still wreaking its havoc just across the border in Pakistan:

Destroying statues of the Buddha. Threatening Christians with death unless they convert to Islam. Burning barber shops. Shutting down a UNICEF polio-vaccination program. Setting fire to stores that sell Indian and western movies. Dispatching suicide bombers to murder soldiers.

Roger Cohen gets it:

The Nazis burned Brecht. The Taliban, then sheltering Osama bin Laden, bombarded the “un-Islamic” Buddhas. The burning presaged war. The destruction presaged 9/11: two Buddhas, two towers.

Heinrich Heine noted that “When they burn books, they will, in the end, burn human beings.” When Buddhas buckle, people will be crushed...

Mark
Ottawa
 
a_majoor said:
Time lines I have used when speaking in public:

ANA: Two battalions on the ground in Kandahar today, expected to rise to 5 by the end of this ROTO (for people versed in military matters I explain these are essentially "motor" battalions with rifles and light/medium arms).
ANA Full control of Afghanistan: A decade
Microcredit programs to show effective results: 2-5 years while these women learn their trade and make a profit
Education: 10 years for the 6 million children to graduate and begin taking higher education or technical training
Higher education: 10 more years to reach critical mass of trained and educated professional and technical personnel
Rebuilding a nation: 20 years for Germany and Japan

Lots of work to do, and we should be there all the way since we essentially pledged ourselves for the task in 2002. The field force might not be needed after 2011 (maybe sooner, maybe later), but the other two "D"'s will need to keep going for decades to come.

Good breakdown, I keep telling people this is a generational war, this generation needs to get through school with an education that is useful. The Taliban understand that an educated population is determentail to their cause, hence schools and teachers are their targets along with any government infrastructure. funny to think that our left-wing socialists are backing a group that wishes to destroy government structure, which is a primary tool of socialist to promote their concept of society.
 
A good piece in The Independent (sub-head is a bit torqued):

Lest we forget
In Afghan fields, the poppies blow... and another British soldier dies in a war without end

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article3146457.ece

...The latest death occurred yesterday: a soldier serving with 36 Engineer Regiment was killed when his vehicle rolled off a bridge near Sangin in Helmand province, the scene of some of the most bitter fighting since British forces were sent to there early last year.

Although British troops in Helmand and the Canadians in Kandahar have regained some of the territory lost to the Taliban, they simply do not have the troops in numbers to hold the ground. As a result, repeated operations have to be undertaken to recapture strategic positions.

The battle being waged against the Taliban in southern and eastern Afghanistan can seem remote even in Kabul, let alone Britain, though insecurity has crept closer to the Afghan capital in recent months. A new front was opened this week, when more than 70 people were killed and more than 100 injured in the northern town of Baghlan in the worst suicide bombing in the country's history...

The northern Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras who dominate the life of the capital certainly do not want the Taliban back. But they fail to understand why the battles being fought against the Pashtuns, both Afghan and Pakistani, who constitute the majority of Taliban fighters, along with a small but significant number of extremists from other Muslim countries, have not made their own lives safer. They are uneasy too at the growing toll of Afghan civilians, often in air strikes called in by Nato forces spread too thinly on the ground.

Despite urgent appeals most of the other Nato members have failed to come up with troops for Afghanistan and even some who have deployed there have put caveats on these forces, effectively shielding them from full-scale combat...

British commanders in the country openly admit the Taliban's propaganda has been far more effective than their own. One of its most telling slogans, addressed to Nato, has been: "You have the watches but we have the time. " In other words, all the money and technology Nato has brought to bear will be of no avail, because its commitment will not last.

Farmers in Afghanistan may soon be subsidised in an effort to stop them producing heroin, in a radical plan proposed by Gordon Brown. Ministers are looking at introducing a system of payments, similar to the Common Agricultural Policy, to encourage farmers away from opium production.

Britain has recognised that it must emphasise, both to Afghans and its own people, that it is in for the long haul. The beefing up of the diplomatic mission in Kabul – which will in due course move back to the grand 19th-century premises built in Lord Curzon's day – is one clear token of that [actually the premises were built in the 1920s under Curzon's instructions as Foreign Secretary--I've stayed there, nice suburban villas].
http://www.e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allDocsArticles/8B9995881912CB4787256C230051698C?OpenDocument

And this week the Defence Secretary, Des Browne, made it clear that the British military commitment would last at least until 2010. Mr Browne announced that a temporary brigade headquarters was being set up to command British forces in Afghanistan after October 2009, when the current British deployment ends, to April 2010.

"The precise size and duration of the UK military in Afghanistan will depend on a number of factors, including the ability of the Afghan security forces to take greater responsibility for the security of their own country," he said on Thursday. "However, to ensure that any forces we might deploy are properly prepared and commanded, it is necessary for the brigade headquarters to be established now.".. 

...the Taliban fighters are increasingly well trained and using sophisticated techniques, according to the commander of the 1,200-strong Polish contingent in Afghanistan. Brigadier General Marek Tomaszycki added: " We have more and more examples of tactics which are used in Iraq and are being imported to Afghanistan. We have to consider the enemy as very dangerous."

But even so, the baffled bookseller of Kabul is not alone in needing to be reminded why British troops are in his country. They went there to oust a movement which had reduced Afghanistan to anarchy and penury, and gave safe haven to al-Qa'ida, which wants to Talibanise the whole world.

But at least Britain now has more troops stationed in Afghanistan – 7,700 – than it does in Iraq. They face a task made more difficult because of the West's, and their own Government's, fitful attention to it. But the 83 British soldiers who have given their lives there will not have not done so in vain if Britain stays the course – something it owes to its own people, as well as to those of Afghanistan...

A lovely rhyme about Curzon:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0016-7398%28198711%29153%3A3%3C343%3ACAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

My name is George Nathaniel Curzon
I am a most superior person
My hair is soft, my face is sleek,
I dine at Blenheim once a week.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Randall lost the handle.  A letter just sent to the Ottawa Citizen:

It is fine for Randall Denley to oppose the Canadian Forces' mission in Afghanistan ("Keep in mind the soldiers who are yet to die", Nov. 11).
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=a6cd7888-3e80-499b-b077-2ef3b466491b
It is also fine for Mr Denley to note that our military have a bigger budget and a new prominence in the country--though writing that Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Hillier "is practically treated like a rock star" is a bit of a cheap shot. What however is not fine is to then write: "Sure, it's taken a few lives to accomplish all of this, but from the perspective of National Defence Headquarters, the costs have to look pretty modest compared to the gains."

So Mr Denley thinks the leaders of the Canadian Forces are quite happy to have our soldiers die in order to achieve their organizational goals. That is a disgraceful slur on those officers and on Gen. Hillier in particular.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Agreed that it is a very poor article but unfortunately there are many out there of this same opinion.
 
Opinion is one thing, it is after all an opinion piece, but it's important
to point out the glaring disconnect with some basic facts.
I fired off an email pointing some stuff out, about some of obvious errors

Frankly, what's below is just plain misinformed.

We have blundered into a fundamental change in our international role. We're no longer just peacekeepers and aid-bringers. We are now prepared to use our military as a foreign policy tool. We have become the kind of country that invades other countries, for their own good.

What he has written is an anti-war and anti-military rant.
His huffing and puffing in this direction has obscured any point he tried to make.
Sadly some people will swallow it.




 
Back
Top