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

[OldSolduer]

IMO, and not the most learned at that, is that the politicians have to crap or get off the pot.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Baden Guy: As for trainers, more than this second National Guard brigade already committed?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/afstan-extra-brigade-of-us-trainers-to.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[McG]

It's not our war
We are there to assist, but the war in Afghanistan will not be won until its public institutions are stabilized
Nipa Banerjee
The Ottawa Citizen
26 Mar 09

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's comment that the war in Afghanistan is not winnable, has generated an immense amount of debate. Journalists, Canadian civil servants who have spent time in Afghanistan and families of Canadian soldiers who have served there, have taken offence. Certainly, Harper did not mean to degrade contributions made by Canadians -- soldiers and civilians alike. His comment only reflects the reality, discarding the prospect of solely a "military" solution in Afghanistan. To this I add, Canada winning in Kandahar is not the issue.

If we interpret this "war" as Canada's war in the Kandahar province, it is not winnable. Canada's combat mission in Kandahar does not represent the war in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan is a war for stabilizing the country and it is a war of the Afghans. The international community is only there to assist. Canada happens to assist in Kandahar, the UK in Helmand and Netherlands in Uruzghan.

The instability in Afghanistan is, of course, largely due to the Taliban insurgency. But other elements, which also act as destabilizing factors and fan insurgencies, are weak state institutions -- both military and civil -- that are incapable of handling insurgencies. Weaknesses of public institutions are starkly reflected in inadequately trained and numerically small armed and police forces, lack of a free and fair justice system and weak public service delivery institutions. Weak public institutions are not only incapable of countering insurgency but they, in fact, feed insurgencies by allowing the insurgents to win over support of the public, frustrated with poor governance, lawlessness and the absence of essential services.

The counter-insurgency (the so called "war" against the Taliban) that Canada, UK and the Netherlands are leading in Kandahar, Helmand and Uruzghan respectively, is no doubt an essential element of the war of stabilization, but the insurgency will have to be ultimately countered by the Afghan army -- Mr. Harper rightly admits this. No less important are the struggles to establish good governance, the rule of law and the delivery of social and economic development -- the other essential elements of the war for stabilization of Afghanistan. Afghan institutions must take leadership roles in implementing reforms in these areas as well if the goal of stabilization is to be attained.

Despite strong signs of stability not emerging speedily enough, the war of stabilization could still be "won" if this war was ultimately led by Afghans. Unfortunately, the Afghan institutions remain weak. Although both the international community and the Afghan government share responsibility for the failure to strengthen state institutions, the continuing weaknesses largely reflect the international community's failure to build and sustain capacity of Afghan public institutions. Incorrect delivery mechanisms, un-strategic investments in and poor quality of technical assistance has resulted in billions of dollars of wasted aid resources, an the failure to develop Afghan capacity.

Today, seven-and-a-half years after November 2001, when the transitional government of Afghanistan came to power, the Afghan government does not have control over its security operations, its development budget or its development priorities, all of which are under the international community's control. Citing the weak capacity of Afghan institutions, the international community continues to deliver major portions (70 per cent) of aid resources not through Afghan institutions but through parallel mechanisms under their own control. This practice results in missed opportunities for building Afghan institutional capacities. If Afghan institutions remain weak, the objective of stabilization of Afghanistan will remain unattainable.

As long as Canada considers the war in Afghanistan as its war in Kandahar and continues to divert an undue proportion of total Canadian aid to this province through its signature projects, the stabilization objective will not be attained, no matter how hard it tries to sell the Canadian projects as "owned" by the Afghan government.

According to a study done by the Kabul-based Center for Afghanistan Peace Studies, development work delivered by the international community -- including CIDA and the Canadian Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) -- is not appropriately coordinated with the local government and people. The study also found that development work has been undertaken, in many instances, without the knowledge of the local government and that the opportunity to generate local employment has been lost because local people are not being hired for much of the international community funded development work.

One must assess the extent to which Canadian measures are addressing the stabilization needs through strengthening of Afghan institutions. Paying the salaries of the entire police force in Kandahar (as announced by Lawrence Cannon and Stockwell Day) will not necessarily strengthen the institution responsible for law and order enforcement. Measures of this nature are, in fact, fiscally unsustainable and thus damaging for the Afghan government, in the long term. Continuation of un-strategic investments will fail to stabilize Afghan institutions and ultimately result in losing the war in Afghanistan.

Nipa Banerjee served in Afghanistan as Canada's head of aid program from 2003-06. She now teaches international development at the University of Ottawa and provides advice to the Ministry of Finance in Kabul on policy implementation.

 

[Good2Golf]

Ms. Banerjee's assessment is BANG ON!

 

[MarkOttawa]

Baden Guy: The 4,000 trainers announced today by the president are indeed an addtion to the two National Guard brigades already committed; that's a hell of lot of trainers, esp. as the manoeuvre units also do some mentoring:

4,000 82nd Airborne paratroopers going to Afghanistan to train security forces
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=61638

President Barack Obama announced Friday that 4,000 paratroopers with the 82nd Airborne Division will head to Afghanistan this fall to train Afghan security forces.

“For the first time, this will fully resource our effort to train and support the Afghan Army and Police,” Obama said.

A White House official speaking on background could not say Thursday which brigade with the 82nd would fill the mission.

The deployment will fill the request by Gen. David McKiernan, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, for a brigade of trainers, the official said.

In a sign of the new importance the administration is placing on the mission, the 82nd Airborne troops will be broken into 10-to-14-member advisory teams, a Pentagon official said. Until now, the military has relied heavily on inexperienced National Guardsmen [emphasis added] to fill out the teams, though Marines have also filled that role.

“The change couldn’t be more dramatic,” said retired Lt. Col. John A. Nagl, president of the Center for a New American Security, a nonpartisan defense think tank. “The 82nd Airborne Division is the nation’s shock force.”..

Since early 2008, a growing number of Marines have been used to train Afghan security forces.

On Thursday, the senior administration official said that the training mission in Afghanistan had been under-resourced for the past few years, and that the president wants to fix that.

Ultimately, the goal is to train an Afghan Army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000, he said.

McKiernan had requested a total of four additional brigade combat teams’ worth of troops and an additional combat aviation brigade [emphasis added].

So far, the Defense Department has announced the following units will be sent to Afghanistan to meet his request: The 3rd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division; 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade; 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division; and 82nd Airborne Division’s Combat Aviation Brigade [emphasis added].

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post at The Torch:

Obama's war indeed
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/obamas-war-indeed_27.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[observor 69]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html

Newsmaker: Petraeus and Holbrooke
Margaret Warner interviews U.S. Central Command head Gen. David Petraeus and special envoy Richard Holbrooke on newly unveiled U.S. plans for the Afghan-Pakistan region.

Click on link to access "download" of audio interview.

The approach taken by Holbrooke and Petraeus to Afghanistan, as discussed in this interview, is more important than simply putting in more numbers of personnel.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Baden Guy: Saw most of it, waiting for video to do Torch post.  Can you imagine such a, er, serious, interview on Canadian TV, without a bunch of point scoring being tried by everyone?  One does weep, sometimes.  Please see the end of this post:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/03/2000-more-british-troops-for-afstan.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Newsmaker: Petraeus and Holbrooke

Transcript here:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/jan-june09/afghanpak_03-27.html

Video here:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/module.html?mod=0&pkg=27032009&seg=1

Something worth noticing: with the 4,000 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division, plus two National Guard Brigades,
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/afstan-extra-brigade-of-us-trainers-to.html
the US will have about as many personnel assigned to training alone as the second-largest foreign contingent in the country, the British, now has for all military purposes.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

More details on what Obama's war will mean for the CF--some serious perspective--and the story does note the usually overlooked Danes--though it misses the Romanians in RC South:
http://english.mapn.ro/cpresa/continuarearhiva.php?id=3010

Obama rolls out his own war on terror
4,000 troops headed for Afghanistan; president to ask NATO for more
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Obama+rolls+terror/1437954/story.html

...
The Americanization of the war in Afghanistan was inevitable once the conflict in Iraq began to wind down, because NATO countries in Europe -- with the exception of Britain, Denmark and the Dutch -- refused constant demands to send forces to the only places in Afghanistan that really matter: the east and south of the country.

The increase in activity is already breathtaking.

The most obvious evidence is the vast swath of real estate being claimed by American forces at the already overcrowded Kandahar Airfield, which is the logistical hub for the war in the south.

Every few minutes, giant transport aircraft disgorge troops, combat gear or supplies. There are new landing pads for more than 100 helicopters from the 82nd Aviation Combat Brigade. Seabees from the U.S. navy are frantically erecting scores of barracks and other buildings. Every road on the base is being torn up as plumbing and electricity systems are installed.

Outside the airfield, Canadian troops in Kandahar still outnumber Americans; but, by the end of the summer, four of every five soldiers outside the wire in Kandahar will wear a Stars and Stripes shoulder patch [emphasis added].

This dramatic move doesn't diminish Canada's key role in the volatile south. The Canadians will remain in the same numbers precisely where they are now: in one of the deadliest parts of the country, an area about the size of New Brunswick [i.e. the heavily populated districts around Kandahar City--Arghandab, Zhari and Panjwayi--where most of the province's people outside the city itself live]. In most places, it's less than 100 kilometres from Pakistan, where Taliban leader Mullah Omar is said to direct the insurgency from the city of Quetta.

What has changed is that the Americans are going to blanket much of the rest of Kandahar. They are to provide what a diplomat here has called "a protective crust" to the north and east of Kandahar City [emphasis added--including southeast of Kandahar, e.g. Spin Boldak, the crossing point for the main road from Quetta to Kandahar].

As a result, Canadian troops hope insurgents and their weapons will have a harder time getting through from safe havens in Pakistan...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Prime Minister Harper on Afstan--video of interview on CTV's Question Period, March 29 (recorded March 28).
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/ctvs-question-period/march-29-2009/#clip155217

The PM says that President Obama's announced strategy...

...I think mirrors the Canadian government's position, frankly mirrors the great work done by John Manley and his counterparts [sic], I think it mirrors it just about as closely as it possibly could and we were a couple of years ahead of the curve.

What self-serving tripe. Moreover, since the Manley report was issued just some fourteen months ago, and since the House of Commons' resolution extending our mission until 2011 only passed just over one year ago, we certainly have not been "a couple of years ahead of the curve."

As for 2011, the prime minister was very clear indeed:

...we are planning for the end of the military mission at the end of 2011.

So far as I can see from everything he's been saying there is no inclination to change that planning.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

More--further misleading political spin from Mr Harper. In response to a question about the effect the American troop increase (one doesn't say "surge" in polite company) will have on Canadian operations at Kandahar, he responded:

...this is very good news. One of the conditions of the extension of our mission in Kandahar was getting a military partner in Kandahar province. Obviously the Americans are that partner and the Americans, quite frankly, are bringing in far more troops than we had initially believed we needed, or hoped for.

What a load of codswallop. The prime minister is implying that only now are we finally receiving a military "partner" at Kandahar. Somehow he's overlooked the US Army battalion that has been an operational part of the CF's Task Force Kandahar since last August. That unit was the "partner" the Manley panel said was needed.

That a US Army brigade combat team, plus a US Army aviation combat brigade, are to be deployed in addition, largely to the Kandahar region, in fact demonstrates how seriously the Manley panel underestimated the need for additional forces.

Pity the interviewer, Craig Oliver, didn't know enough to bring to the prime minister's attention that the "partner" had already been provided, and that the new troops are something quite different. Typical of our media. Moreover, I can't remember any example of a government minister stating that the 2-2 Ramrods (more here) are that partner. MND MacKay provided an egregious example last November.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/11/afstan-mnd-mackays-miserable-failure-to.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[McG]

PM: Afghan role will remain deadly
Kathleen Harris
Winnipeg Free Press
30 Mar 09

More American boots on the ground won't make the mission easier or less deadly for Canadian troops in Kandahar, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In an interview with CTV News, Harper said the influx of thousands more U.S. soldiers will take "some of the pressure" off Canadians operating in the dangerous south. But he warned that casualties are often a matter of bad luck and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. "We will continue to have a combat role. You can't provide a vigorous training support to the Afghan security forces unless that involves direct combat exposure yourself. So it will continue to be a dangerous mission, notwithstanding the fact we will be vastly reinforced by the American presence," he said.

The PM confirmed Canada's combat role will end in 2011 -- undeterred by President Barack Obama's new strategic plan for the region or his pitch for NATO partners to back the U.S.

Harper noted that by the scheduled exit date, Canada will have been in the war zone for nearly a decade.

And while the U.S. is making it a key foreign policy objective, Harper believes Obama doesn't want it to become an "endless conflict" either.

[For full article see Winnipeg Free Press]

 

[MarkOttawa]

Al Qaeda--what the PM says to whom.  From the transcript of the prime minister on Fox News Sunday, March 29:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511369,00.html

...
WALLACE:
...
Prime Minister, does that mean that we're going to have to learn to live with Al Qaeda and the Taliban in that part of the world?

HARPER: No, I wouldn't — I wouldn't put it that way. I think what Secretary Gates said is correct, that first of all, we absolutely have to see the elimination of any kind of threat to the wider world, to North America.

Obviously, the Al Qaeda insurgency and the Al Qaeda element of this has to be — has to be eliminated. I think we agree with that...

Funny, I don't recall Mr Harper ever telling a Canadian audience that al Qaeda must be "eliminated", or that "elimination of any kind of threat" is a goal of his government's policy. In fact, this is what he said in an interview with Canwest News the same day:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/03/29/transcript-sheldon-alberts-interviews-prime-minister-stephen-harper.aspx

...You may notice the (Obama) administration is much more clear on eliminating al-Qaida than eliminating the Taliban...

Rather a different emphasis, wouldn't you say? And nothing about his government's interest in "eliminating" al Qaeda. Different strokes for different folks. Hmmm.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[The Bread Guy]

From a transcript of his 29 Mar 09 interview on FOX News:

.... we are in Canada ramping up our civilian presence and our civilian commitments in Afghanistan in preparation for the end of the military mission. But we're going to continue to be there and continue to assist with governance and development challenges ....

 

[PanaEng]

Rather a different emphasis, wouldn't you say? And nothing about his government's interest in "eliminating" al Qaeda. Different strokes for different folks. Hmmm.

So what?
target the message to the audience...
Do you want to undermine Harpers public support? Do you like Iggy better?
I do like Iggy but I don't want a change in Gov yet...

cheers,
Frank

 

[leroi]

Brigadier-General Dennis Thompson in Canada & speaks to the Globe and Mail on Afghanistan, "the people are the prize." :yellow:

Afghans Caught Between Bleak Options

(Placed here in accordance with the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.)

OMAR EL AKKAD
March 30, 2009

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090330.wafghan_thompson0330/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

(audio on link)

The former head of the military mission in Kandahar dismissed on Monday the argument that Afghanistan is caught in a downward spiral, even as he said the local population's sense of security is plummeting.

Brigadier-General Denis Thompson met with the Globe and Mail's editorial board Monday morning, part of a two-week Canadian outreach trip that will see the senior soldier speaking at multiple universities, visiting wounded soldiers and meeting with families of soldiers who died during his time in command of the Kandahar mission. Brig-Gen Thompson's nine-month tour ended in February.

While conceding that during his tenure the perception of security dropped among Afghans from about 55 per cent to 30, Brig-Gen Thompson said support for the Taliban is still between 15 and 20 per cent.

“If the people are the prize, they haven't been lost yet,” he said.

Brig.-Gen. Thompson attributed the dropping sense of security to a growing tendency by Taliban fighters to assassinate mid- and low-level Afghan officials, and the soaring rate of improvised explosive devices. But he added that local support for the Taliban remains low because, unlike other militant groups around the world, the Taliban does very little to provide local services.

Still Brig-Gen Thompson painted a grim picture of the choice Afghans face – one between a violent extremist group and a largely ineffectual government.

“The two competing ideas both stink,” he said.

Brig-Gen Thompson's outreach trip comes as U.S. President Barack Obama announced last week that he will send 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan – 4,000 more than expected. The troops, whose focus is expected to be on training much-needed Afghan security forces, will be accompanied by myriad civilian support staff.

Training of local police and military forces is considered one of the most vital keystones of a self-dependent Afghanistan. Brig-Gen Thompson said NATO is making some strides towards legitimizing Afghanistan's largely unorganized police force, including issuing bank cards to officers instead of paying them in cash, so as to minimize skimming by corrupt officials. However he still described the process of local police recruitment as operating on the “Hey You” principle – as in, simply going to a local from the area and saying “Hey you, come join the police force.

Indeed, Brig-Gen Thompson sometimes bordered on contradiction in describing the situation in Afghanistan. He boasted that NATO forces had killed a Taliban deputy shadow governor in Kandahar, but quickly added that describing him as a deputy shadow governor only perpetuates the idea that the Taliban operate a shadow government, which he said isn't the case.

Repeatedly, though, Brig-Gen Thompson returned to the theme of working with the local population, saying locals are the best source of good quality information about the enemy.

“The people are the prize,” he said, “and the insurgents have to live among them.”

 

[Mosher]

I just read this article and agree that this should be a mandatory read for all Canadians. I understand more so has to why we are there. I find this article very motivating! I am very motivated to become apart of the CF and fight for our country and to help others, and this article made me more so motivated then ever!
Sorry, I just felt a need to express my thoughts on this article.


Edit: I also bookmarked this article and will be making my family read this to understand further what our motive truly is.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Interview with Brig.-Gen. Denis Thompson from CBC "News Sunday", March 29, video at link

Debriefing the General
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2009/03/032909_2.html

Brigadier-General Denis Thompson was commander of Canadian and NATO forces in Kandahar province up until last month, and we spoke with him from Kandahar on our show just before Christmas. Thompson joins us in studio to talk about the nine months he spent with the mission.

Via Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs:
http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/257-Eng.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

US to take really serious military action in Pakistan?  Paul Wells of Maclean's magazine is connecting dots--note the reference to Canada; at this point I'd suspect instead subtle US support for another military coup (maybe with some sort of thin civilian cover):

Pakistan: Hair on fire (several internal links at original post)
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/01/pakistan-hair-on-fire/#more-47161

Let’s connect a few different data points so I can show you why I think events in Pakistan may very quickly come to a head — why I think some quite nasty and direct U.S. military intervention there is now likely, and soon.

I was struck last Friday by this excerpt from Barack Obama’s speech unveiling his new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy: “Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that Al Qaida is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan.” As I wrote on Friday, that language closely mirrors — and since this was a very important speech, should be read as having been designed to mirror — the language in the infamous Aug. 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief, “Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.”

It’s been an article of faith among critics of George W. Bush’s pre-9/11 policy on terrorism that he didn’t take such warnings as a serious spur to action. Richard Clarke has built a post-public service career on assertions that, while the intelligence community had its “hair on fire” in the summer of 2001, the president didn’t act.

How credible are the threats Obama’s “multiple intelligence estimates” perceive? Obviously I’m not the guy who’s going to be able to judge that. But here’s Izzat Khan, a senior aide to Pakistan Islamist leader Sufi Muhammad, telling our Adnan Khan in this week’s extraordinary Maclean’s cover story, “I’ll tell you how we can end this war. If we can get our men close to the U.S., in Venezuela, or Brazil, or Canada [emphasis added], and attack them from there, then they will stop attacking us.” Adnan Khan adds: “Among the TNSM, there are already men who operate clandestinely, shaving off their beards and donning Western clothes.”

And then, as our Mike Petrou pointed out this morning, here’s Baitullah Massud, a leader of the Taliban in Pakistan, calling Western reporters to promise “an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone.”

In the face of these on-the-record threats, which may individually have little specific credibility but which together represent a pretty clear mindset, here’s what Obama said on Friday about U.S. action in Pakistan:

    “Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out Al Qaida and the violent extremists within its borders. We will insist that action be taken, one way or another, when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets.”

Hours later a reporter asked Richard Holbrooke: “Does that mean if the Pakistanis will act we will not, and if they do not, we will?” Holbrooke replied: “I just don’t think we can answer that question. It’s speculative, it’s hypothetical, and it would be deeply injurious to our national interest to speculate. But I appreciate the importance of the question, and that’s all we’re ready to say.”

The reporter pressed his luck: “Can you say something about what the President meant by that?” Holbrooke’s reply: “No.”

Mark
Ottawa