pinko said:
It is interesting to note that the Americans are now considering initiating a dialogue with the so called Taliban with a view to some sort of reconciliation and common ground for peace.
Coincidentally, if you go digging into any military doctrine on the topic, you will find that we’ve been aware from the start that military role in counter insurgency is to set the security conditions that will allow for the diplomatic and rest-of-government solution to the conflict. This is neither new nor interesting, unless one is arguing from an uninformed position. Soldiers know that an insurgency is a political problem requiring a political solution. Discriminately applied military power is a key enabler to allow for humanitarian relief, reconstruction and the initiate of political efforts.
pinko said:
I take the position that the N[ATO] forces ought to vacate Afghanistan at the first available opportunity and let the Americans continue their so called war on terror if that is what they choose to continue to do.
pinko said:
It seems to me that Canada would be better served by leaving the combat effort to the Americans …
pinko said:
I see no valid reason to support the bully to the south …
pinko said:
… as I understand it he [Obama] contemplates incursions into Pakistan, the sovereign state adjacent to Afghanistan. ... Rather than bringing an end to terror I submit that this will only accelerate the conflict and bring the world closer to another world war.
If the US is a “bully” and (as it seems) you do not trust their motives or methods in Afghanistan, why would you want to bestow upon them the sole authority for international efforts in stabilization & military security within Afghanistan? A secure and peaceable Afghanistan is, for now, dependant on a large military security/stability effort. This role is being filled by Afghan security forces and ISAF. Shutting down this effort would be the same as turning our back on the Afghan people and their suffering.
pinko said:
It seems to me that Canada would be better served by leaving the combat effort to the Americans and concentrate instead on helping the Afghans in developing an effective policing and judicial system.
As the resources required are separate, wouldn’t you think it would bew best to support international security efforts and help in developing effective policing and judicial systems? While we are at it, lets help in the development of effective boarder security and prison services. Of course, being read-in, you know we are already doing this.
pinko said:
Afghanistan has been occupied …
pinko said:
The occupation of Afghanistan …
There is no occupation. The international community (including the United Nations and many non-NATO nations) is operating in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected government. That government is not perfect, but it will continue to improve over time and as the Afghan people continue to exercise their new democratic rights.
pinko said:
Has it not occurred to you that you and your colleagues are seen as occupiers and not (as you perceive) as liberators.
Are we seen as occupiers, or is that your perception? I have not seen any indicators to support your position. I do know of Afghan elders who lost their composure to sadness when learning of the killing of a Canadian CIMIC officer who had been supporting the village. I have read more than a few news articles quoting Afghans complaining of the foreign fighters, but these were in the context of Arabs and Chechens fighting for Al Qaida.
pinko said:
I don't particularly care what policies the Taliban may have nor do I buy into the hype used to justify the continued occupation of Afghanistan.
Again, it is still not an “occupation.” Further, while preventing a return of the Taliban Regime is an element of our role it is a tangential element. Our primary function is to establish security for humanitarian and reconstruction efforts and to set the conditions for a political solution.
pinko said:
… some seven years now and and there is very little tangible evidence that the life of the ordinary Afghan is better in a material sense.
Reconstruction , counterinsurgency and reconciliation are not over-night wonder events. They take a lot of time. Despite that, I do not agree there is very little evidence of improvement. The ANP, for all of their problems, are becoming more professionalized (in Kandahar this is a large part due to mentoring by Canadian military police and RCMP). The reliability of the electrical grid is improving. A much greater number of young Afghans are being educated (including girls) due to the establishment of many new educational facilities and the heightened security fought for by ISAF. New born children now have a much greater chance of living to their first birthday. This list goes on; the evidence is out there. You just have to honestly want to look for it.
pinko said:
History has shown that conquests by previous imperial powers have failed in subduing the peoples of this region and there is every reason to believe that will continue to be the case.
I’m sorry but this, at best, is a cognitive distortion. You certainly could not take the number of time though history that a nation has attempted “subduing the peoples” of Afghanistan and arrive at a statistically relevant conclusion. None of the variables are controlled, so the application of scientific method is unachievable to begin with. However, your observation really looses all relevance when one considers that we are not making any attempt toward “subduing the peoples” of Afghanistan.
pinko said:
If you are suggesting that the Taliban is a monolithic group then I am sceptical of such a claim.
The Taliban is not a monolithic group. This makes negotiating at a macro level difficult to impossible. Instead, such political efforts must be aimed at the local levels or intermediate levels of leadership.
pinko said:
As a civilian whose taxpayer dollars are presumably paying for this effort I am quite concerned that our government has followed the USA lockstep in this incursion …
We’ve not followed the US. The legitimacy of our effort is larger even than NATO. We are in Afghanistan as part of a united international community. The United Nations continues to authorize the ISAF mission and request member states to contribute to its efforts. Many of the nations which were vocally opposed to operations in Iraq have been actively supportive and involved in Afghanistan from the start.
pinko said:
… at the same time stripping civil liberties here in Canada in the name of the so called war on terror..
RED HERRING ALERT!!! Our deployment in Afghanistan and our domestic posture on terrorism are not linked. The Anti-Terrorism Act could have been passed even had we not deployed to Afghanistan, and our deployment to Afghanistan would not have ended earlier had the Anti-Terrorism Act not been passed. Please take your intellectually dishonest obfuscationist to a more relevant forum. If you want to discuss the Anti-Terrorism Act, then I suggest you start here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/board,70.0.html or http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/board,22.0.html
pinko said:
I am sure you realize that public opinion is divided in [C]anada.
We could probably get into an interesting discussion on how well typical members of either side of that debate are informed of the issues. But it is not really relevant to the current discussion.
pinko said:
I am certainly aware of the fact that Canada is a N[ATO] partner and that training is ongoing with respect to policing and criminal justice. I am also aware that corruption is endemic in this country and that a staple of this economy is its drug trade.
… I would also like you to speak to the issue of corruption within the ranks of the Afghan police and army.
…
I am sure you will agree Afghanistan is a narco state.
There are problems. While the military community is doing its part through mentoring of Afghan security forces, these problems are largely political and require the involvement of such organizations. As mentioned previously, development in Afghanistan is (by the nature of all such activities anywhere) a slow process. Progress will come, but not in we leave now.
pinko said:
Please define what you mean by enforce security.
That would be enforcing the rule of law, and protecting the population from terrorism. While some elements of the Taliban may limit their aggression to military targets, there is a significant number which deliberately target the civilian population and political figures. Deliberate beatings, disfigurements and killing of the civilian population is an abhorrent means of achieving one’s political ends. Unlike the Taliban, the international coalition does not employ such techniques. The coalition does work to protect the population from this, and these attack would not stop if we were to suddenly leave.
pinko said:
"I'm sure that you can agree with me that the Afghan people require aid in the form of either dollars or food stuff (grains etc), equipment, medical supplies, hydroelectric power to help with infrastructure rebuilding?"
Yes. As do many of the billions of poor throughout the world.
Diffusing our efforts across the world will dilute those efforts to the point of ineffectiveness. We’ve started a concentrated humanitarian effort in Afghanistan. We are best to see it through to an self-sustainable conclusion before fully removing our efforts and re-allocating to another place where we can do good. To do otherwise would be a disservice to Afghanistan and every other future nation from which we’d leave as soon as it lost the media’s 15 min of interest.