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

[observor 69]

I agree with all that IHC.
But the comment that we would probably move to another province if we role change was news to me?

 

[Haletown]

But now, Steffi wants to invade/bomb Pakistan.

"QUEBEC -- Any attempt to counter terrorists war-torn Afghanistan will not succeed without an intervention in neighbouring Pakistan, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said Wednesday.

Mr. Dion hinted NATO could take action in Pakistan, which has a porous border with Afghanistan, if the Pakistani government doesn't move to track terrorists."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=242249

 

[MarkOttawa]

A letter of mine in the Toronto Star, Jan. 16:

Canada will taste the U.S. appetite for change
Column, Jan. 13
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/294323http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/294323

Rudyard Griffiths writes
http://www.thestar.com/article/293340
that "voters are warming to candidates who espouse ... scaling back overseas military missions." Canadians should be aware that is not the position of the two leading Democratic candidates with respect to Afghanistan. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both more hawkish than our government, not to mention the Liberals, NDP and Bloc.

Obama wants the U.S. to send more troops "to reinforce our counter-terrorism operations" in Afghanistan, and wants European members of NATO to eliminate the caveats that prevent their forces from fighting.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13974/%20
Clinton has written that "our military effort must be reinforced. The Taliban cannot be allowed to regain power in Afghanistan; if they return, Al Qaeda will return with them."
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601-p30/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html

It would seem likely that a Democratic president would be disappointed with a decision by Canada to abandon our Kandahar mission.

Mark Collins, Ottawa

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Haletown]

With this kind of grossly misleading reporting by the Star, it is not hard to figure out why so many Toronto voters are Liberal and show so little the  support for our troops and the mission.

At least they printed your letter and that will go a long way to redressing the incorrect impressions that the original article promoted.

Good on ya

 

[observor 69]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011603521_pf.html


Fight in Afghanistan
It's becoming clear that the war must be won by U.S. troops, and not by NATO.

Thursday, January 17, 2008; A22



THE BUSH administration's decision to dispatch an additional 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan raises the question of whether NATO's participation in the war has been a failure. Though the United States already provides more than half of the 53,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, the additional Marines are needed because no other NATO country was willing, despite months of pleading and cajoling by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, to commit fresh forces to the troubled southern provinces where the Taliban has made a comeback.

What's more, Mr. Gates and other senior Pentagon officials seem to have concluded that the three NATO countries that have been willing to operate in the south -- Britain, Canada and the Netherlands -- have been relatively ineffective. Mr. Gates told the Los Angeles Times this week that "most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counterinsurgency"; the Pentagon believes they are too averse to casualties, too reluctant to patrol and too dependent on artillery and airstrikes. The Post's Karen DeYoung reported that U.S. commanders criticize British troops for failing to retain control over areas taken from the Taliban and for advancing a "colonial" strategy of backing local militias rather than working with the national Afghan army.

European diplomats and NATO's defenders furiously respond that the American complaints are unfounded. Almost all of the alliance's members have increased their commitment to Afghanistan in the past year, they point out, helping to raise the troop level under NATO command from 33,000 to 41,000. The troubles in the south, they say, are the result of NATO forces penetrating an area that U.S. commanders had neglected, allowing the Taliban to flourish. British officials say their strategy in Helmand province is comparable to the successful U.S. alliances with Sunni militias in Iraq.

Certainly, NATO's involvement in Afghanistan has done some good. Deployments in more peaceful areas of the country, as well as Kabul, fulfill a peacekeeping role that might otherwise fall to American troops. The commitment of 25 other NATO governments (as well as 13 other countries) to the Afghan mission makes the operation more palatable both to Afghans and to Americans. Though many countries restrict their troops from combat, the British, Canadians and Dutch have made contributions in blood, suffering a total of 177 fatalities; 480 U.S. soldiers have been killed.

It nevertheless is a good thing that Marines rather than European soldiers will deploy in Helmand province this spring to head off any Taliban offensive. Defeating the Afghan insurgency will require the United States to take on a larger part of the fighting. Success will also require U.S. commanders to insist that a more coherent, nationwide counterinsurgency strategy be pursued -- including aggressive training of the Afghan army and police, economic development that is centrally coordinated, and a focused attack on the opium business that supplies most of the Taliban's funding. If that means downgrading NATO's role or bruising the feelings of some allied governments, so be it.

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post at The Torch:

Not that our opposition will pay heed
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/not-that-our-opposition-will-pay-heed.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Dog Walker]

I hope that this group is proven wrong; otherwise it looks like things will be getting worst before they become better.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL216061.htm

Afghan war only just beginning, security group warns
19 Jan 2008 10:20:20 GMT
Source: Reuters

KABUL, Jan 19 (Reuters) - The war in Afghanistan is only just beginning as NATO forces, far from pursuing remnants of a defeated Taliban, are entering a widening and deepening conflict they may well lose security NGO said on Saturday.
Taliban insurgents, fighting to overthrow the pro-Western Afghan government and eject foreign forces, carried out more attacks over a wider area in 2007, the Afghanistan NGO Security Office (ANSO) said in its report for last year, and the best case scenario for this year, is "more of the same".
"A few years from now, 2007 will likely be looked back upon as the year in which the Taliban seriously rejoined the fight," said ANSO, which monitors security for the dozens of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working in Afghanistan.
U.S.-led and Afghan forces ousted the Taliban from power in late 2001 after the conservative Islamist movement refused to hand over al Qaeda leaders behind the Sept. 11 attacks.
But, "with the Taliban resurgent, it has become obvious that their easy departure in 2001 was more of a strategic retreat than an actual military defeat," the report said.
"In simple terms, the consensus among informed individuals at the end of 2007 seems to be that Afghanistan is at the beginning of a war, not the end of one," it said.
The Taliban are still most active in their traditional heartlands in the south and east of the country, but have also extended attacks to parts of the west, centre and north.
The NATO-led International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF), has some 41,000 troops in Afghanistan, but due to restrictions on how and where most European troops are deployed and taking out the necessary support troops, ISAF can not field more than 5,000 to 7,000 combat troops, ANSO estimated.
ISAF commanders have long complained of a lack of troops and the U.S. government, despairing over the failure of European countries to send more troops to Afghanistan, this week announced it was sending 3,200 marines to the country.
Even so, the best case scenario for 2008 was "more of the same", ANSO said with Taliban insurgents slowly expanding its influence on the countryside and aid groups being forced to retreat into the relative safety of the cities.
Western political leaders and NATO commanders say they are making progress in fighting the Taliban, heading off a spring offensive last year and building up Afghan security forces.
"We totally disagree with those who assert that the 'spring offensive' did not happen and would instead argue that a four-fold increase in armed opposition group initiated attacks Feb to July constitutes a very clear-cut offensive," ANSO said. (Writing by Jon Hemming; Editing by Bill Tarrant))

 

[Teflon]

Who is:

the consensus among informed individuals

..........

Oh that little known but all seeing and knowing gathering of EXPERTS that due to their shear greatness and reliability must remain nameless,....

 

[MarkOttawa]

A great piece by a great journalist (read the whole thing):


BLATCHFORD'S TAKE: A WOEFUL WEEK [print version only]
Afghanistan: painful displays of ignorance and arrogance
http://199.246.67.249/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20080119/BLATCHFORD19/Comment/comment/commentColumnistsHeadline/3/3/8/

...before the Liberal leader met Canadian troops and posed in the cute camo outfit (I would knock the block off whoever lent the gear to him, by the way)
http://chuckercanuck.blogspot.com/2008/01/bushs-poodle.html
he had his mind made up - the combat mission, as the party's submission said, should end as scheduled in February, 2009. His visit there was a disingenuous and fraudulent exercise in bullshit public relations.

On Mr. Gates: The defence secretary's remarks to the Los Angeles Times, to the effect that some of the NATO armies in Afghanistan "don't know how to do counterinsurgency operations," were profoundly inaccurate and disrespectful, particularly of the British and Canadians, who have been running the show respectively in Helmand and Kandahar provinces.

His absolute arrogance - that only Americans know how to fight - and ignorance aside, Mr. Gates ignored the indisputable fact that what the Brits and Canucks have run into in the fiery south is a direct result of too few U.S. troops having been left in the country after the so-called fall of the Taliban [well, they did fall to the Northern Alliance, with some US and UK help, and took some time to really start coming back]...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/10/afghanistan-has-not-been-invaded-by.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Who is:

..........

Oh that little known but all seeing and knowing gathering of EXPERTS that due to their shear greatness and reliability must remain nameless,....

ANSO is indeed very active in theatre and provides the day to day security advice to both the UN and to a variety of NGOs.  They can indeed be described as "experts" in at least that sense.  Whether they're positioned to deliver strategic assessments is another matter.

 

[Teflon]

Yes Good I can read that as well, but I was looking on more definition on who the consensus of informed individuals the article refers to consisted of.

 

[McG]

I think the question was less "who is ANSO" and more "who are the informed individuals"

Yet, while the narrative does not tell us who they are, it makes it clear that only uninformed individuals could possibly disagree (as all informed individuals have arrived at consensus.

 

[MarkOttawa]

A guest-post at Daimnation! (note the Update):

Afghanistan: The view from T.O.
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/010709.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

How long do we stay in Afghanistan doing our current mission?

Short Answer:  until January 2011

Long Answer: Having read the entire submission of the Liberal Party of Canada's submission to the Manley Panel in another thread on this site, I have come to the conclusion that only substantive policy that I see is the proposal that the Parliament consider four courses of action, as laid out on page 4 of the submission (train only, reconstruct only, move to a less volatile region, withdraw except for Diplomatic and Development worker close protection).  We need more than that.  The Canadian Government, and through extension, all Canadians, need to inform themselves more than just scratching the surface or developing one or the other choice of a binary decision (stay/leave).

I don't disagree that a whole of Government review of the role of the Government of Canada in helping Afghanistan rebuild and further develop itself should be undertaken.  However, the 2009 date has little if any basis of validity.  I will go further -- having studied much of the fundamental developmental work (not just aid at villiage level, but whole of Government of Canada contribution to Afghanistan's redevelopment), I provide the following comment regarding what I believe should be Canada's role in Afghanistan.

I believe that the Canadian Government's position should be to remain firmly engaged in Afghanistan.  As directed by the Liberal Government in 2005 and maintained by the current Conservative Government, the period of engagement should continue until at least January of 2011.  January 2011.  Why January 2011?  I'll will explain why January 2011.  Did I forget to mention why we shouldn't change our mission until January 2011?

Background

United Nations - Millennium Development Goals (ref) - Eight goals to strive to achieve in every country in the world to reverse the grinding poverty, hunger and disease affecting billions of people.

The UN Millennium Project (ref) - A concrete action plan for the world to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.  The Millennium Project was envisioned as a developmental 15-year plan for nations to meet the MDGs by 2015 (having started at the turn of the Millennium - 2000).  (Download an overview report of the Millennium Project here)

Afghanistan's Millennium Development Goals (ref) (UN eight goals, plus additional specific goal - #9 - Enhance Security).  The Afghan government submitted and the UN reviewed an assessment of the initial starting point in its  (2005 AFG MDG Report ref).


Afghanistan development - Support from the International community: from The Bonn Process to the London Conference.

The Bonn Process - In December of 2001, several Afghan groups met in Bonn under UN support in order to develop a transitional process that would lead to democratic elections for a ‘broad-based, gender-sensitive, multi-ethnic and fully representative government’.  The resulting "Bonn Agreement" signed 22 December 2001,

The Bonn Agreement (ref)

(UN endorsement of the Bonn Agreement ref)


The London Conference (ref) - The purpose of the Conference (held in London 31 January to 1 February 2006) was threefold:

• 1) To launch the Afghanistan Compact (see below), the successor to the Bonn Agreement. The Compact provides the framework for international community engagement in Afghanistan for the next five years. It sets outcomes, benchmarks and mutual obligations that aim to ensure greater coherence of effort between the Afghan government and the international community.
  
• 2) To provide an opportunity for the Government of Afghanistan to present its Interim National Development Strategy to the international community. The strategy sets out the Government's priorities for accelerating development, increasing security, tackling the drugs trade , and strengthening governance.
  
• 3) To ensure the Government of Afghanistan has adequate resources to meet its domestic ambitions and international commitments.

Notes:

1. A 2005 UK House of Commons Library Report, titled "Afghanistan: the
culmination of the Bonn process", makes a particularly good read for developing a background of contemporary issues in Afghanistan, and in particular, development assistance achieved up to 2005 and the events leading up to the Afghanistan Compact.  Time well spent reading this document.

2. A European view of the development process in Afghanistan - a good reference for those not familiar with and/or wishing to educate themselves on the Euro-centric view of Afghanistan's requirements.

3.  The German Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, addressed the attendees at the London Conference, providing a valuable linkage and acknowledgment of the progression of Afghan development from the Bonn Agreement to the Afghanistan Compact. (ref)

Afghanistan's ownership of the development process

The Afghanistan Compact (ref)

- The Afghan government document presented at the London Conference in January 2006 as an action plan which, combined with UN acceptance of the AFG MDG Report of 2005 and presentation of an acceptable plan to initiated substantive rebuilding and development (the I-ANDS, see below) resulted in $10B being pledged from the International Community for investment in Afghanistan and to support the implementation of the ANDS for the following five years.

Afghanistan National Development Strategy (ref)

- The "international sponsor community-approved" (through the UN) rebuilding and development plan for the first five of fifteen years to work towards and achieve the UN MDGs.  Updates to be developed for each of the next two five-year development periods in sequence as the first five-year phase approaches completion in January of 2011.

- The five year plan that represents the initial five years of the overall 15 year effort to attain the UN MDGs (January 2006 until January 2011). 

Note: The "Interim-ANDS" (I-ANDS) was a draft of Afghanistan's submission/proposal to the UN describing how the UN-contributed resources would be employed to most effectively improve Afghan society.  It was accepted, along with the Afghanistan Compact, as a commitment from the Government of Afghanistan to the international community that reconstruction, rebuilding and further development would be consistent with and fully supportive of achieving the UN's Millennium Development Goals.  It was accepted at the London Conference and taken for action to implement as the ANDS.

Note: Important ANDS-related documents available here (ref) from the Afghan Government web site.

While this post was a bit longer than I had initially intended, I wanted to fully support my contention for why we must remain engaged AS WE ARE until January 2011.  It is why we changed our focus from the very limited Reconstruction in the immediate vicinity of the city of Kabul in 2005 to the multi-departmental "3D approach (Diplomacy, Development and Defence)" of the Government of Canada of 2006, moving to Kandahar province to forward the cause of rebuilding and developing Afghanistan in a manner that was entirely consistent with the government's support pledged to Afghanistan at the London Conference in January of 2006.  Canada pledged hundreds of millions of dollars at the London Conference, we signed on to the Afghanistan Compact, we supported the Afghanistan National Development Strategy, so we are bound as a Nation to remain committed to the successful implementation of the ANDS, something that will be achieved substantively by the ANDS' target completion date of January 2011 [year corrected in edit].  It is for precisely this reason that I believe Canada must continue the current mission, as is, until 2011 at least. 

How will the remaining ten years of the 15-year development plan to meet the MDGs in Afghanistan will go, and how will Canada support it?  That has yet to be determined, but I would suggest that it is exactly that question now, that Canada must actively consider.  That is what Parliament should be discussing, not how to disengage from a whole of government effort after only 60% of the work is done (i.e. only three of the five years of the ANDS implementation comprehensively supported.)

I invite those who feel that the issue is one worthy of consideration to at the very least, independently review the Afghan government's own policy and documentation as well as the UN policy regarding its Millennium Development Goals in general, and such goals are applied specifically to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.  If at the end of your assessment, you do not agree with others, there is nothing wrong with that.  It is the right of each person within a democracy such as ours to be able to hold and voice our individual opinions.  I would invite those with differing views to invest similar effort to educate me and others here on their own views -- something that would be most appreciated.  To simply rend forth platitudes generated by spin doctors or public affairs wizards, or so-called subject matter experts, however, without having applied consideration and critical though...well that would be disappointing.  Having personally experienced significant improvement in many regions of Afghanistan, and dearly wishing to return to continue assisting a proud people rebuild and develop their Nation, I hope that Canadians do take the effort to further educate themselves on the issue of Afghanistan to a point where they feel morally at ease with their position.

Regards,
G2G



p.s.  Just to help put some perspective on the issue to at least balance the view against those who think it's just George Bush and his lackey nations supporting continued presence of security forces in Afghanistan, this from the German government's position on Afghanistan Development (ref)

...
No reconstruction without security

The state organs of Afghanistan are to be enabled to ensure stability in the country independently. To this end, training, advisory services and assistance are to be stepped up. Special importance will be accorded to support for the Afghan security forces. In order to accelerate progress, the German government helped initiate the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL) during its presidency of the EU. This mission started work in June, and will be pushing forward with the training of the Afghan national police. With some 37,000 soldiers, the Afghan national army has now reached about half its planned strength of 70,000. Increased efforts are needed here to increase its de facto readiness to deploy. The German government will continue its military contribution to maintaining security until such time as the Afghan security forces can ensure the security of the country independently.

Staying power is the order of the day

Long-term peace will only be brought about by a comprehensive and networked approach. This will take time. The German government is willing to support Afghanistan in the long term. The overwhelming majority of the Afghan people trust that the international community will not let them down. The German government does not intend to betray their trust.

...and from more of the German Foreign Ministry - "The civil-military approach – the prerequisite for effective reconstruction" (ref)

Security and reconstruction are two sides of the same coin in Afghanistan. That is why the civilian-military approach forms the backbone of the international engagement in that country. Moreover, there is no contradiction between civilian reconstruction and military support. Both are necessary.

In 2002 reconstruction workers arriving in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban and decades of fighting found shattered society and a war-torn country with most of its infrastructure in ruins, with no working state structures, no army, no police force. It was clear that the classic development aid concept was not going to work here. The whole spectrum of state activity first needed to be created. It was important to the international community's helpers – civilian and military – to persuade the Afghans that they were there as partners rather than occupiers.

Since 2002 much has been achieved. Experience has shown that coordination between civilian and military engagement is often essential. Civilian aid workers benefit from the secure environment created by the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr). Their cooperation with the Bundeswehr is of course voluntary, based on the recognition that both sides can work more effectively together. For that reason a dual civilian-military command has proved its worth in the reconstruction teams, aimed at equating the factors of stabilization and reconstruction.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Mickey I. seems rather more muscular than Citoyen Dion--but if we stay at Kandahar we will inevitably be involved in some combat, even in the mentoring OMLT role.  Incoherence still rules in Liberal policy:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=75c4e409-a50f-4e83-af0c-2aa219a3c2f3&k=61858

The opposition Liberals are open to recommendations from John Manley's panel on Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said Monday.

Ignatieff hinted that the Liberals might fine-tune their own policy in light of recommendations, expected Tuesday, from a panel headed by Manley, a former Liberal cabinet minister appointed by the Conservative government to study the mission...
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080120/manley_panel_080121/20080121?hub=TopStories

The Liberals have pushed unsuccessfully for months for a plan to have Canada's 2,500 troops fighting insurgents in the Kandahar region shifted to training, civilian protection and reconstruction in a less dangerous part of Afghanistan.

Asked if there is enough room in the Liberal policy to accept a continued presence in Kandahar for training or some other non-combat role, Ignatieff replied "Yes, there is."..

In a speech opening the caucus meeting, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion appeared to emphasize that the Liberals don't want Canada to withdraw entirely from Afghanistan, though they want a refocused role there.

"We are not Jack Layton," Dion said, referring to the NDP leader's longstanding call for withdrawal. "We will not abandon Afghanistan."

Dion said after the mission's scheduled expiration in February 2009, Canadians would remain to help rebuild Afghanistan, train Afghan police and military, and "care for the people."

"Yes, we will be in Afghanistan for a mission in the traditions of Canada," he said...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

From the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee, well worth the read:

Submission to the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan: The Honourable John Manley, Derek Burney, the Honourable Jake Epp, the Honourable Paul Tellier, Pamela Wallin.
http://euston-canada.spaces.live.com/blog/cns%213BC4D1C0051E0E5A%21312.entry

Committee members:
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/01/canadas-future-role-in-afghanistan.html

Zachary Miles Baddorf, Journalist in Vancouver; Colette Belanger, Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan (CW4WA) Board of Directors, Simon Bessette, LL.B candidate, University of New Brunswick; Melaney Black, CW4WA, Victoria; Natalie K Bjorklund, MD, University of Manitoba; Marc-Andre Boivin, researcher, Université du Québec à Montréal Peacekeeping research group member; John Boon, Liberal Party activist; Ken Bryant, Associate Professor, Asian Studies, University of British Columbia; Jennifer Button, CW4WA – Victoria; Iona Campagnolo, PC, CM, OBC, Former Lt. Gov., British Columbia; Dominic Cardy, NGO director, Nepal, New Brunswick New Democratic Party; Mark Collins, Canadian Embassy, Kabul, 1975-77; Natasha Cowan, McGill University, business graduate; Stewart John Cunningham, Sess. Instructor, Historical Studies, U of T Mississauga; Steven Davis, Academics for Higher Education and Development, Montreal; Judith Desautels, Supporter, CW4WA, Amnesty International; Janice Eisenhauer, Executive Director, CW4WA; Lois Edwards, CW4WA, Manitoba; Cheshmak Farhoumand-Sims, peace and gender researcher on Afghanistan; L. Chris Fox, Doctoral Candidate, University of Victoria; Paul Franks, Professor, Philosophy, University of Toronto; John Fraser, P.C., O.C., O.B.C., C.D., Q.C., LL.D. (Hon.); Terry Glavin, Author, journalist, adjunct professor, UBC; Stephen Glanzberg, law student; Sanja Golic, MA researcher (Afghanistan education); Robert Gillies, Citizen, Toronto, Ontario; Richard Gordon, MD, Professor, University of Winnipeg (Books with Wings); Robert Harlow, Novelist, British Columbia; Najia Haneefi, Former Executive director, Afghan Women's Education Centre, Kabul; Daniel King, President, Conservative McGill; Ian King, Journalist, Columnist, Vancouver; Robert D. Lane, Res. Associate, Phil. & Religion, Malaspina U College; OJ Lavoie, Environment activist, McGill University; Jill Leslie, CW4WAfghan - Victoria Chapter; Bruce Lyth, British Columbia Young Liberals, vice-president; Flora MacDonald, PC, CC, O. Ont.Chair of CARE Canada; Dave Mann, Brantford, Ontario New Democrat, Euston Canada; Mark Masongsong, Liberal Party activist; Doug McArthur, Professor, Public Policy, SFU; Jim Monk, Ontario gay rights, trade union activist; Gareth Morley, Lawyer, Victoria; Jonathon Narvey, Journalist, editor, copywriter, Vancouver; Lyle Neff, Poet, journalist, critic, Vancouver; Lauryn Oates, Vice-president, CW4WA; Tom O'Neill, Associate Professor, Social Sciences, Brock University; David A. Pariser, Professor, Art Education, Concordia University; Ben Parfitt, Journalist, researcher, Victoria; Stan Persky, Writer, philosophy instructor, Capilano College; Karim Qayumi, Afghan-Canadian community leader, Professor, Director of Excellence for Surgical Education and Innovation, Vancouver; John Richards, Professor, Public Policy Program, SFU; Ferooz Sekandarpoor, Production Manager, Ariana (Afghan) TV, Vancouver; Madeliene Tarasick, CW4WA, Kingston; Beryl Wasjman, Institute for Public Affairs – Montreal; Axel Van Den Berg, Professor, Sociology, McGill University; Morton Weinfeld, Sociology professor, McGill University; Ariana Yaftali, Afghan-Canadian, Manitoba.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[GAP]

A most excellent submission....there are few point missed and what is covered (everything) is covered well....thanks' Mark

 

[MarkOttawa]

Afstan: A "misjudgment of historic proportions"--that is what those who oppose our combat mission are making, according to this piece by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon--
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080124.wcomment0124/BNStory/Afghanistan/home
which the Globe and Mail chooses to publish only on the Web. Why not in the print edition? And the minds of those opponents will remain closed to his assessments and arguments despite their professed devotion to the UN (via Bruce Rolston):
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2008_01_24.html#006324

Afghanistan is a potent symbol of the costs inherent in abandoning nations to the lawless forces of anarchy. That alone justifies international efforts to help rebuild the country. Lest there be any doubt, remember Sept. 11, 2001, and its worldwide reverberations. We learned then how a country, shorn of its civic institutions, becomes a vacuum to be filled by criminals and opportunists. In its chaos and poverty, Afghanistan became a home base for terrorism.

Must we learn that lesson all over again?..

Yet, this progress is in jeopardy. Once again, the opportunists are on the rise, seeking anew to make Afghanistan a lawless place — a locus of instability, terrorism and drug trafficking. Their means are desperate: suicide bombs, kidnappings, the killing of government officials and hijacking of aid convoys. Almost more dismaying is the response of some outside Afghanistan, who react by calling for a disengagement or the full withdrawal of international forces. This would be a misjudgment of historic proportions, the repetition of a mistake that has already had terrible consequences...

The United Nations, alongside national and international counterparts, non-governmental organizations and Afghan civil society, will continue to provide the Afghan government whatever assistance it needs to build on these achievements. Our collective success depends on the continuing presence of the International Security Assistance Force [emphasis added], commanded by NATO and helping local governments in nearly every province to maintain security and carry out reconstruction projects.

In December, the Afghan National Army, supported by ISAF forces, reclaimed the town of Musa Qala in the southern province of Helmand, occupied by insurgents since February of 2007, and a major poppy-growing area. Significantly, it was led by the Afghan army and carried out at the request of the local population. At long last, development work can begin anew in Musa Qala.

The Afghan government has far to go before it regains control of its own destiny. But that day will come. It is hard work. There is little glory. It requires sacrifices. And that is why we are there [emphasis added].

Rather better than what Prime Minister Harper has been saying. Please read it Stephen, Stéphane, Gilles and Jack. And all those self-satisfied pundits.

John Manley, for his part, put the case superbly. Here's a good post by Aaron Wherry at his Maclean's blog
http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dip&pid=101603&tid=101603&eid=62&so=1&ps=0&sb=1
(also via Bruce Rolston).
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2008_01_24.html#006325

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Update to previous--the "Comments" at the Globe site are, er, revelatory:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080124.wcomment0124/CommentStory/Afghanistan/home

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

And a great post by Terry Glavin:

UN's Ban Ki-Moon Says Troops-Out Stance "Almost More Dismaying" Than Taliban
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/01/ban-ki-moom-assails-troops-out-stance.html

...
It's not the first time the UN Secretary-General has appealled to NATO-ISAF countries to maintain their combat-troop levels in Afghanistan to ensure the country doesn't revert to “a host for terrorist and extremist groups.” But this latest appeal was far more frank, candid, plain-spoken and stern than anything he's said to date, that I'm aware of.

After the Secretary-General's blistering rebuke, is it really possible to continue to take anyone seriously who says things like "It's time to move NATO troops out, and UN peacekeepers in"?

How many more UN resolutions on the subject do we need?..

Read the whole piece and check the links.

Mark
Ottawa