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

[Southern Boy]

I guess the only thing worse than having an opinion is not having one.

 

[MarkOttawa]

I wonder what M. Dion thinks about:

What's happening in Pakistan
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/whats-happening-in-pakistan.html

Especially Secretary Gates offer of direct military help to the Pakistanis.

Update:

Pakistan's Musharraf Says No US Troops
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-World-Forum-Pakistan.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Afghanistan and Canada, reason and passion--If you take the Afghanistan issue seriously, watch the January 25 edition of TVO's "The Agenda". John Manley and Janice Stein (about whom I have not always been complimentary) speak very well about what is involved. The host, Steve Paikin (whom I usually like), tries overmuch to stir things up, with little success. Video is available here, on the right at "Watch Video".
http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=7&bpn=779114&ts=2008-01-25%2020:00:48.0
Please do.

Slightly less than an hour but well worth the time to consider matters put pretty starkly and, I think, honestly. An informed democracy, and all that...

John Manley made this strong observation: Professor Michael Byers "didn't have the courage" to appear before his panel. Quite.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-i-say-no-to-byers.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

It's Ban Ki-moon's war

A letter of mine in the Globe and Mail (the title is theirs; mine was the one for this post):
http://199.246.67.249/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20080126/LETTERS26-15/Letters/commentLetters/commentLetters/4/4/16/

"Pay heed to Mr. UN

By MARK COLLINS
Saturday, January 26, 2008 – Page A22

Ottawa -- I find it curious that you chose to publish United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's article Being In Afghanistan Is Dangerous, Not Being In Afghanistan Is More Dangerous (Jan. 24)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080124.wcomment0124/BNStory/Afghanistan/home
in the online edition only. Your general readership surely would have been interested in these words of his: "Our collective success depends on the continuing presence of the International Security Assistance Force, commanded by NATO and helping local governments in nearly every province to maintain security and carry out reconstruction projects."

In any event, Canadian politicians such as Jack Layton and Elizabeth May - who advocate having the UN take over the international military presence in Afghanistan - should pay close attention to the words of the UN's own Secretary-General. Though I doubt they will."

It's one of Norman Spector's "Letters of the Day".
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/LETT.htm

I sent the following letter to the National Post, January 24; they've not printed it. Don Martin is a journalist--it's never quite clear whether he's a reporter or a columnist--from Alberta. He likes to play the role of a hard-bitten, cynical, old-school newsman (but with a sharp sense of humour) who just calls them as he sees them and takes no guff from no-one. Unfortunately his vision is rather limited. He's basically all attitude and little cattle, as the letter I think demonstrates:

'No wonder Canadians are confused and ill-informed about the situation in Afghanistan. Don Martin, in his column "Canadian troops far from alone" (Jan. 24),
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=b83b88f1-a339-4aa7-8559-5ccf520ca978&k=46155&p=1
purports, among other things, to explain where the troops of various countries participating in NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) are stationed. Unfortunately he gets quite a few basic facts wrong--all the more remarkable since he was in Afghanistan himself just half a year ago.

Australian troops are not partners with the British in Kandahar province; they are partners with the Dutch in Uruzgan. The Dutch themselves have not "locked in their 1,500 soldiers until 2010"; they are reducing their strength to around 1,100. Turkish troops are not in the east with the Americans; they are in Kabul and in addition provide a provincial reconstruction team in Wardak, just to the west of Kabul. The 3,200 Marines being sent to Afghanistan--not 3,500 as Mr Martin writes--are not to be stationed in the east. The 2,200 combat troops will be based in the south (and under the overall command of Canadian Maj.-Gen. J.G.M. Lessard, who becomes head of ISAF Regional Command South in February); the rest of the Marines will mainly train the Afghan National Police, wherever needed. The French are not in the north; they are in Kabul (the French also have six Mirage fighters based at Kandahar). And while there are some Romanians at Kandahar, as Mr Martin notes, the largest Romanian contribution is a battalion fighting with the Americans in the east.

What a lot of misinformation. Dear me.

References:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/23/2126197.htm
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EDIS-79JMYL?OpenDocument
http://www.genelkurmay.org/eng/uluslararasi/isaf.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4120 http://www.forces.gc.ca/dsa/app_bio/engraph/FSeniorOfficerBiographyView_e.asp?SectChoice=1&mAction=View&mBiographyID=63
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/ema/votre_espace/contents_in_english/afghanistan/03_01_08_french_forces_in_afghanistan
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=73b91e8c-37da-43e7-9ccb-2f06e345150c

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

A goof of mine in letter to National Post in preceding comment--Brits of course are in Helmand.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

The world according to Hillier
Ottawa Citizen, Jan. 28
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=e1e25045-9b59-4ca1-88b9-a1d09d0cb7f2

...
ON NEGOTIATION INSTEAD
OF FIGHTING:

"I think you have to draw a line. Yes, you want to negotiate, discuss and without violence. But when you get to some of those men -- you know something? It's not about religion. It's not about extreme views.

"It always comes down to this: Men want power -- power to make money, power to enforce or inflict their views on others and power to remain immune from responsibility for, and accountability for, their actions. They take patriotism to the extreme of nationalism. They take religion to extremist views.

"In Prijedor, Bosnia (where in 2000 he took command of NATO's Multinational Division (Southwest) in Bosnia-Herzegovina), we had a chief of public security, a mayor and a chief of police. And they were the equivalent of having Paul Bernardo as your mayor, Clifford Olson as your chief of public security and Karla Homolka as your chief of police. How can you deal with people like that in a dialogue and get them to actually help the people they're responsible for -- as opposed to abusing, torturing and in many cases, killing them?

"Some Canadians don't understand the fact you can't just go and talk to people in Southern Afghanistan and say 'OK, now put your guns down and let's all come to an agreement that we're actually going to build some schools and we're actually going to have some boys and girls go to school and we're actually going to choose who's going to lead us here.'

"People start shooting and killing folks and children, women, older people or men --they don't care -- and at some point in time, you're just going to have to say 'We're not going to accept this'."

ON PEACEKEEPING:

"The peacekeeping concept works superbly in many cases -- not all. It worked when it was state-versus-state that had come to some politically-negotiated agreement. They now needed assistance in helping separate military forces to implement that agreement.

"The world has changed. Now we very seldom have that. What we have are stateless threats based on terrorist groups who can operate either across several countries, regions or worldwide."

ON PREVENTION:

"Fighting is necessary to prevent terrorism from coming here. It's clear. The Taliban, when they ran Afghanistan, provided a haven for terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, but not exclusively al-Qaeda.

"There's the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, among others, that operated in the region. They brought recruits from other parts of the world to Afghanistan, trained them, fed them. And from there, they did their planning for terrorist operations. The nexus of the plan on 11 September to attack the World Trade Center came out of Afghanistan and the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"We are trying to help Afghans to build a country that no longer is a haven for that kind of terrorism, is no longer a chaotic country where drug lords can actually make billions of dollars by exporting drugs that disrupt western societies and other regions."

ON A CANADIAN WITHDRAWAL:

"I would simply say why we're doing these things, and why some other countries should step up.

"First of all, this is what the soldiers see, and they tell me this.

"1: We are a founding member of NATO and NATO says this is a No. 1 mission.

"2: There are other NATO countries with us in Afghanistan, fully engaged in operations against the Taliban. The United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Romania, and Poland are (in the south) with us [note the countries so rarely mentioned in Canada].

"Yes, I would like to see more from other NATO nations in southern Afghanistan, but you also have got to put that into context of what they're doing elsewhere around the world.

"3: We're there to help the government of Afghanistan who asked for this help because they can't see their way to rebuild their country without some kind of security assistance until they build their own armed forces -- which we are helping them to do.

"So if we're not going to respond with help to a country that desperately needs it, what are we going to do?

"4: We have been a huge proponent of the responsibility to protect. And words in the case of Afghanistan just won't do it at the present time. So, are we not going to be stepping up to put actions to words?

"Lastly, we're a G8 nation. One of our young commanders told me recently in Edmonton: 'Sir, we're not trying to become one of the big boys. We are one of the big boys. Now we should just start acting like it. We are a G8 nation that has responsibilities.'..

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

UN chief gets it
What will it take for opposition to grasp Afghanistan mission?
Toronto Star, Jan. 31, by Lorrie Goldstein
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/01/31/4803730-sun.php

If the Secretary General of the United Nations writes a powerful defence of the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan and nobody reports it, is that the same as if he never wrote it at all?
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-665982.html#msg665982

In Canada, apparently so. Sun reader Pav Penna recently pointed me to a remarkable column written by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for the Globe and Mail on Jan. 24, which the paper ran only on its website.

Penna asked why no Canadian media have reported its contents. Good question. They're certainly politically significant for Canada, given the ongoing debate about the Afghanistan mission domestically.

Indeed, to be sure it was authentic, I contacted the UN Secretary-General's office in New York yesterday, which confirmed the piece was indeed written by Ban Ki-moon.

So, given that Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe are forever telling us how important it is for Canada to act through the UN, I'm sure many Canadians would like to hear their responses to the UN Secretary-General's observations about our UN-sanctioned military mission in Afghanistan...

Now, to be clear, some of us have doubts about the UN on other files.

But since Dion, Layton and Duceppe are such big fans, perhaps they could tear themselves away for a moment from worrying about what happens to Taliban prisoners our soldiers capture and address this far more substantive issue.

TORTURE

Obviously, our soldiers shouldn't hand over Taliban prisoners to Afghani authorities if they have reason to believe they'll be tortured. That said, it's absurd to expect them, or our government, to be able to guarantee prisoners in Afghanistan will be treated exactly the same as they would in Canada. To suggest otherwise is just nonsense.

So again, Stephane, Jack, Gilles back to the real question: Do you support our UN-mandated mission in Afghanistan, as described by the UN secretary-general or not? Yes or no?..

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

And a post at The Torch (note the blog mentioned at the end):

Critically reviewing Afstan
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/critically-reviewing-afstan.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Flip]

An interesting comment in the National post today:

Dion finds a way out for all
John Ivison, National Post 
Published: Thursday, January 31, 2008

OTTAWA -Stephane Dion is preparing to declare a stunning victory for the Liberals on Afghanistan. Mr. Dion is subtly changing his original position -- but it won't be characterized as a retreat. He will just be attacking in the opposite direction.

The Liberal leader was sticking to his non-negotiable position that the combat mission in Kandahar must end in February, 2009, when he talked to reporters after Question Period yesterday. But he also introduced a new concept -- "timelines" -- which suggests he does not see Canada's mission in Afghanistan ending next year. "We need a timeline .... Timelines are important," he said.

This refinement in Liberal policy was discussed at yesterday's caucus meeting and emerged from a suggestion by B.C. Liberal Keith Martin that the Liberals propose hard targets, in numbers and timelines, for the development of the Afghan army, police, judiciary and correctional services. The imposition of timelines would satisfy Liberal concerns that Canada not be engaged in a "never-ending" war. But their adoption would also be in accord with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's belief that our contribution should be reviewed within two to three years.

This apparent evolution of the Liberal position means a compromise agreement is possible -- and that the chances of a general election over Afghanistan are about as slim as Kate Moss. Mr. Dion must know he faces a damaging split in his ranks if he doesn't forge a deal with Mr. Harper.

Equally, the Prime Minister has signalled his distaste for an election in which Afghanistan is the ballot question. One senior Conservative source says the government is not inclined to be brought down on the Afghan issue. As such, the source said it is unlikely the parliamentary vote on the mission would be deemed a matter of confidence. This would mean a government defeat would not automatically trigger an election, allowing all MPs to vote with their conscience, as they did when the mission was extended in spring, 2006.

Once Mr. Harper and Mr. Dion have struck their unholy alliance, as seems likely, both men will be free to claim victory. The Liberal leader will be able to say his input has meant the "combat" mission has been transformed into a "training" mission that will operate to tight timelines to ensure progress. If he does, it would be diplomatic of Mr. Harper not to point out that the Manley report makes the explicit point that this "falsely implies a clear line between a training role and combat activity; in reality, training and mentoring Afghan forces means sometimes conducting combat operations."

The truth is Mr. Harper needs Mr. Dion. He is using the Liberal leader's current intransigence as a negotiating chip with NATO to ensure the delivery of the extra 1,000 troops demanded by the Manley report as a pre-condition for Canada's continued participation. This must be one of the only times the partisan tension in Parliament has actually proved productive for Canadians; yesterday NATO's spokesman sounded much more sympathetic to Canada's cause than he did earlier this week.

Ultimately, the Prime Minister needs the Liberal leader's backing to make sure a motion to continue the mission makes it through Parliament.

But Mr. Dion needs Mr. Harper, too. In an attempt to look like a strong leader, he is clinging to an untenable position on Afghanistan -- a position that has been rubbished by Mr. Manley, the former Liberal deputy prime minister, who said there was "no operational logic" for ending the mission in 2009. The Prime Minister has offered an olive branch. If it is not grasped, the Liberal party could fracture and we will all face the prospect of an election in which politicians blame each other for the affront to nature of fathers burying their dead sons.

The commentor seems to have a bias of his own... :
Here's the link

 

[OkotoksRookie]

Thank you,
The wealth of information and opinions here is invaluable. Some of the articles have brought tears of pride to my eyes. I'm not currently enlisted (something which I'm working towards) and admit I have been horribly ignorant to the numbers, statistics and even reasons for our country's involvement in Afghanistan. Unfortunately I'm not alone. My current coworkers, friends and a lot of the people I hear discussing the issue do not know what I have just read. I have copied several links and plan on distributing as much of it as I can to as many people as I can.
Also, every moral fibre in my body compels me to issue a 'THANK YOU'. To the men and women who wear the on their uniform, you make our nation proud. I hope I can join you one day soon.

 

[RangerRay]

UN chief gets it
What will it take for opposition to grasp Afghanistan mission?
Toronto Star, Jan. 31, by Lorrie Goldstein
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/01/31/4803730-sun.php

Mark
Ottawa

I can bet you if the General Secretary of the UN said that the mission in A'stan was unjust, it would have been front page news in every paper, and led on all the networks...  :

The hypocrisy of the MSM in this country, and its incestuous relationship with the Liberal Party is not only disgusting, but dangerous for democracy.

 

[MarkOttawa]

OkotoksRookie: Keep up the good work.  I've never served but a family member is now.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[observor 69]

UN chief gets it
What will it take for opposition to grasp Afghanistan mission?
Toronto Star, Jan. 31, by Lorrie Goldstein
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/01/31/4803730-sun.php

Mark
Ottawa

i]Toronto Star[/i], Jan. 31, by Lorrie Goldstein
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2008/01/31/4803730-sun.php  ???

 

[sgf]

interesting article in today Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080130.wbyersdiscussion0130/BNStory/International/home

 

[Kirkhill]

Flip - Ivison has a sense of the wry.  Read that article again keeping in mind "declaring victory while attacking in the opposite direction".

The Liberals are begging Harper to let them off the hook by pressing him to be "nice" and be a "statesman".    They know that they are going backwards at 60 mph and are just praying that the Prime Minister can resist pointing it out. 

If I was the Conservatives I would be recording every glorious word out of Dion's mouth for use in the next election.

 

[sgf]

right! thats why Harper and the tories are doing so well in the polls

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post at The Torch:

Jack Layton: Simply ignorant or just plain lazy?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/jack-layton-simply-ignorant-or-just.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kirkhill]

This from the National Post

....A year of Liberal solidarity has shown signs of strain around Mr. Dion's position that Canada's combat operation in Kandahar should end as scheduled in February 2009.

...

While Mr. Dion has been categorical about the February 2009 combat end date since the release of Mr. Manley's recommendations, other key Liberal players have tried to keep options open.

The two most prominent players are his ex-leadership rivals Bob Rae, Liberal foreign affairs critic, and Michael Ignatieff, deputy Liberal leader. They do not openly oppose Mr. Dion on the matter; they have been diplomatic so far, usually steering away from the issue of the end date.

....

Whether Mr. Dion can salvage a coherent, united Liberal caucus strategy may be in some internal doubt, given a call by Keith Martin, his development critic, for a free vote on the government's expected motion to extend the mission if the forces are bolstered by more troops and equipment.

It is not known whether Mr. Harper will make the motion one of confidence in the government that could trigger an election if defeated. But Mr. Martin says a free vote will allow Liberal MPs to reflect differing opinions among Canadians. "It's not a harmful thing," he said.

Four thoughts:

1. Dion still hasn't a clue. (About anything).
2. The Liberals will support the Manley Panel
3. Bob Rae should not be put in the same slot as Dion and Layton.
4. If Keith Martin keeps this up (along with his position on the Human Rights Act) he will soon become the latest addition to the Group of Independents sitting in Parliament.

How many seats do you need for official party recognition?
I would actually consider voting for a Party of Independents with no coherent policy beyond representing their constituents.  I would like them running the government but they would be a nice addition to a mix of parties in a minority parliament.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Two posts by Terry Glavin:

The Second Coming
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/02/second-coming.html

A Plea to Canadians from Afghanistan's Sima Samar: "Finish The Job You Started."
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2008/02/plea-to-canadians-from-afghanistans.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[sgf]

well actually it wasnt Canada that started this, perhaps the plea could be addressed to NATO