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

[The Bread Guy]

This, from Agence France-Presse:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper reaffirmed Friday that Canadian combat troops would leave Afghanistan in 2011, but vowed his country would then focus on boosting development and humanitarian efforts.

"Canada's military mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011," Harper told reporters. "And we will not be extending the military mission, period."

By the time the deadline is reached, "we will have been in Afghanistan longer than we will have been in both world wars combined," added the prime minister.

"I think it is time to transform that mission towards development and humanitarian efforts. That's what we're already doing." ....

 

[MarkOttawa]

Torch post:

McChrystal's Afstan options and Obama's al Qaeda option/Choppers
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/mcchrstals-afstan-options-and-obamas-al.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Deconstructing Obamastan policy with a Krauthammer (usual copyright disclaimer):

Young Hamlet's Agony
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/08/AR2009100803132.html?sid=ST2009100803350

When the Iraq war (which a majority of Senate Democrats voted for) ran into trouble and casualties began to mount, Democrats followed the shifting winds of public opinion and turned decidedly antiwar. But needing political cover because of their post-Vietnam reputation for weakness on national defense, they adopted Afghanistan as their pet war.

"I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign, which elevated the idea of Afghanistan as 'the right war' to conventional Democratic wisdom," wrote Democratic consultant Bob Shrum shortly after President Obama was elected. "This was accurate as criticism of the Bush administration, but it was also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy."

Which is a clever way to say that championing victory in Afghanistan was a contrived and disingenuous policy in which Democrats never seriously believed, a convenient two-by-four with which to bash George Bush over Iraq -- while still appearing warlike enough to fend off the soft-on-defense stereotype.

Brilliantly crafted and perfectly cynical, the "Iraq war bad, Afghan war good" posture worked. Democrats first won Congress, then the White House. But now, unfortunately, they must govern. No more games. No more pretense...

On March 27, flanked by his secretaries of defense and state, the president said this: "Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." He then outlined a civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And to emphasize his seriousness, the president made clear that he had not arrived casually at this decision. The new strategy, he declared, "marks the conclusion of a careful policy review."

Conclusion, mind you. Not the beginning. Not a process. The conclusion of an extensive review, the president assured the nation, that included consultation with military commanders and diplomats, with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with our NATO allies and members of Congress.

The general in charge was then relieved and replaced with Obama's own choice, Stanley McChrystal. And it's McChrystal who submitted the request for the 40,000 troops [maybe even more, see the options here],
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125504448324674693.html
a request upon which the commander in chief promptly gagged.

The White House began leaking an alternate strategy, apparently proposed (invented?) by Vice President Biden, for achieving immaculate victory with arm's-length use of cruise missiles, Predator drones and special ops.

The irony is that no one knows more about this kind of warfare than Gen. McChrystal. He was in charge of exactly this kind of "counterterrorism" in Iraq for nearly five years, killing thousands of bad guys in hugely successful under-the-radar operations.

When the world's expert on this type of counterterrorism warfare recommends precisely the opposite strategy -- "counterinsurgency," meaning a heavy-footprint, population-protecting troop surge -- you have the most convincing of cases against counterterrorism by the man who most knows its potential and its limits. And McChrystal was emphatic in his recommendation: To go any other way than counterinsurgency would lose the war.

Yet his commander in chief, young Hamlet, frets, demurs, agonizes. His domestic advisers, led by Rahm Emanuel, tell him if he goes for victory, he'll become LBJ, the domestic visionary destroyed by a foreign war. His vice president holds out the chimera of painless counterterrorism success.

Against Emanuel and Biden stand Gen. David Petraeus, the world's foremost expert on counterinsurgency (he saved Iraq with it), and Stanley McChrystal, the world's foremost expert on counterterrorism. Whose recommendation on how to fight would you rely on?

Less than two months ago -- Aug. 17 in front of an audience of veterans -- the president declared Afghanistan to be "a war of necessity." Does anything he says remain operative beyond the fading of the audience applause?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[The Bread Guy]

This, via CBC.ca, from Prime Minister's Office spokesperson Dimitri Soudas (highlights mine):

The Conservative government intends to keep some Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan beyond Parliament's 2011 end-date for the mission, CBC News has learned .... Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office, told CBC News there will be Canadian troops in Afghanistan after parliament's mandate expires, though "exponentially fewer."

"I would caution you against saying dozens or hundreds or a thousand, there will be exponentially fewer," Soudas said.

"Whether there's 20 or 60 or 80 or 100, they will not be conducting combat operations."

Soudas said the government would shift focus from combat operations and in-the-field training of Afghan police and soldiers to a development and reconstruction mission.

The military's training mission will continue, but it will take place in the safety of protected facilities, he said.

The combat-mentoring role currently undertaken by Canadian troops would end, according to the plan.

"You can do training in training facilities," Soudas said. "And when I say training, I mean Canadian soldiers will not be doing combat training of Afghan soldiers in harm's way."

As suggested/guessed in a previous post:

.... unless they plan to run some kind of recruit-depot-esque facility to groom troops before they get sent to OMLT teams from other countries.

When I read the spokesperson's quote, it brings to mind this line from a US Army/Marines COIN Centre Blog entry:

-Afghans trust and value those whose caveats permits them to go into combat with them

I'd love to hear from those who've mentored about this...

 

[MarkOttawa]

More at Dust my Broom:

I guess it all depends on what the meaning of "military" is
http://dustmybroom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12581:i-guess-it-all-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-qmilitaryq-is&catid=54:gun-stuff

Or something.  The goverment's disingenuous and dizzying tergiversations over what the Canadian Forces may or may not do in Afstan post-2011 are becoming ridiculous and embarrassing; what must our allies think?  In chronological order, from Oct. 8 to Oct. 10:

"Post-2011 Mission Heading Back to the House of Commons....
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/post-2011-mission-heading-back-to-house.html

Afstan post- 2011: No military mission or no military "combat" mission?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/afstan-post-2011-no-military-mission-or.html

Canadians to Train (But Not Mentor) Afghan Troops Post-2011..."
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/10/canadians-to-train-but-not-mentor.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

I’m guessing we are watching, in all these contradictory statements from official Ottawa, a few of the symptoms of a very intense battle for the foreign policy soul of the Conservative Party of Canada.

On one side, on what I will call the activist/internationalist (or, maybe, the Liberal St Laurent/Martin) side are, I think, Peter MacKay and a few Alberta and Ontario MPs including e.g. Jim Prentice, Jim Flaherty and Peter Kent. On the other side, on what I will call the domestic/isolationist side are Stephen Harper and his closest political advisors.

The activist/internationalist position is fairly easy to describe, and Paul Martin did so, quite well, in the link above.

The domestic/isolationist view is a bit more complex: at its roots it says, “Trudeau was on the right track; we have too many problems of our own; we cannot afford to go swaning about, all over the world, helping or fighting all and sundry. We are not going to back away, completely, but we are going to focus on our own backyard, basically the Caribbean. And we will be joining with the Americans, in military mission, now and again, when helping them advances our national interests. Our strengths are economic and we must play to that strength by leading in e.g. the G-20. We are not a significant military power and Canadians do not want to be a military power. We recognize the need for small, but very flexible and effective armed forces and we will spend what is necessary to have them. We will, occasionally, use our military ‘tools,’ but only when other means of advancing our national interests fail.”

It is not clear to me that either side has the political capital to win its position. This war, which has, from day one, been seen as an American war, into which we were dragged – how soon we forget the national mood in the late summer of 2001 – has damaged the activist/internationalist side, but it has done so without strengthening Harper’s position. Canadians remain, very broadly but not too deeply, wedded to a variant of the St Laurent/Martin, Liberal position, but they want to be Pearsonian “helpful fixers” without paying the price in lives or treasure that Mike Pearson so clearly foresaw.

 

[MikeL]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/09/afghanistan-soldiers-canadian.html

Troops get non-combat role in Afghanistan after 2011
The Conservative government intends to keep some Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan in a non-combat role beyond Parliament's 2011 end-date for the military mission, CBC News has learned.

Dimitri Soudas, a spokesman for the Prime Minister's Office, told CBC News there will be Canadian troops in Afghanistan after 2011, though "exponentially fewer."

"I would caution you against saying dozens or hundreds or a thousand, there will be exponentially fewer," Soudas said. "Whether there's 20 or 60 or 80 or 100, they will not be conducting combat operations."

Soudas said the government will shift its focus from combat operations and in-the-field training of Afghan police and soldiers to a development and reconstruction mission.

The military's training mission will continue in protected facilities, he added. Canadian troops' combat-mentoring role would end.

"You can do training in training facilities," Soudas said. "And when I say training, I mean Canadian soldiers will not be doing combat training of Afghan soldiers in harm's way."

Speaking in Welland, Ont., on Friday afternoon, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters the government would not seek to extend the mission authorized by Parliament in 2008.

"Well, let me be very clear …" Harper said, "Canada's military mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011."

Mission changes
The current mission in Kandahar, which begun at the end of 2006, includes 2,800 troops focused around an infantry battle group. That, in the government's view, is the military mission.

The new mission will still contain troops, but its focus will be reconstruction.

Over the past two weeks there has been intense speculation about the future of the mission, initiated in part by Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

MacKay suggested on three separate occasions over the past two weeks there might be a role for troops in Kandahar post-2011, while at the same time maintaining, "the military mission would end."

Those comments caused a minor furore in the House of Commons with angry opposition questions and blistering government retorts.

NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar asked the government on Friday to be more clear.

"We have one minister, minister MacKay, saying we're going to be there after 2011, there will be a role for the military. We have the prime minister and other ministers — minister [Lawrence] Cannon — getting up and saying, it's all over in 2011."

Dewar said the government should make public its intentions for the military's future role, for the sake of Canada's soldiers.

"What do you say to the men and women? And what do you say to Canadians? And, finally, what do you say to our allies?" Dewar asked.

"We should be putting our allies on notice in written form that we are out, and the date. If we don't do that, we're not being responsible to our allies, we're not being responsible to the men and women who are serving and we're not being accountable to Canadians. "

Transformation seen
Harper said it was always the government's intention to change the makeup of Canada's Afghan deployment as the 2011 deadline approached.

"We set out some timelines there for training and for exit and the government has no intention of asking for an extension of that mission," Harper said.

"By the time we reach 2011, we will have been in Afghanistan longer than we will have been in both world wars combined, so I think it is time to transform that mission towards development and humanitarian efforts."

Saturday morning, Soudas contacted the CBC to say the number of troops in Afghanistan after 2011 could range from zero to just a few, or possibly more.

But Soudas said the government has not decided on the final makeup of any future Canadian mission in the war-torn country. He said the issue was still being discussed, and NATO would be notified once a decision was made.

Soudas said the important point is that no matter how many Canadian troops are in Afghanistan, they will not be engaged in combat.

"The military mission ends in 2011. Canadian soldiers will not play a combat role post 2011," Soudas later wrote in an email.

"In terms of our post-2011 involvement, Canada will focus on development, reconstruction and humanitarian assistance."

 

[Nauticus]

On the bright side, we aren't leaving our allies high and dry.

Not a bad move by the government, not that anybody really thought we'd be completely out in 2011 anyway.

 

[MikeL]

I'm really hoping that after some time we will go back to atleast having an OMLT/POMLT aswell as JDCC, CIMIC, etc

 

[vonGarvin]

Smoke and mirrors, ladies and gentlemen.  Smoke and mirrors.  Anyone who thinks that OMLT and PRT do not conduct "combat" are kidding themselves.  Let us not forget that the raison d'etre of the Battle Group is to provide security for the OMLT and PRT. 

The government has decided to leave Kandahar by end 2011.  Helmand, here we come?  :

 

[Nauticus]

Smoke and mirrors, ladies and gentlemen.  Smoke and mirrors.  Anyone who thinks that OMLT and PRT do not conduct "combat" are kidding themselves.  Let us not forget that the raison d'etre of the Battle Group is to provide security for the OMLT and PRT. 

The government has decided to leave Kandahar by end 2011.  Helmand, here we come?  :

Which is fine, as long as the general population doesn't know that, and they don't raise a fuss.

 

[MikeL]

Helmand, here we come?  :

Well I've already seen Zhari/Panjwai an Pashmul I'm up for a change an seeing Now Zad, Lashkar Gah, Sangin, etc

 

[X-mo-1979]

I wouldnt doubt the government doesnt even know what the OMLT POMLT does.They are training...sound safe....right?

I'm all for a AOR change.I always wanted to go live in Dand for 8 months.I got tired of the precipitation down there.Sorta like Newfoundland,always something falling out of the sky.

 

[medaid]

always something falling out of the sky.

Bullets?!  >

 

[The Bread Guy]

Smoke and mirrors, ladies and gentlemen.  Smoke and mirrors.  Anyone who thinks that OMLT and PRT do not conduct "combat" are kidding themselves.  Let us not forget that the raison d'etre of the Battle Group is to provide security for the OMLT and PRT. 

The government has decided to leave Kandahar by end 2011.  Helmand, here we come?  :

Not impossible, but if you believe the PM's spokesperson (and if CBC.ca quoted him correctly), it'll be to train Afghan troops AWAY from the pointiest end.

If you believe the PM (and if AFP quoted him correctly) and the Foreign Affairs Minister (and I hope Hansard is quoting him correctly), even if it IS to Helmand, it won't be for the fight.

Then again, I'm only wild-ass guessing based on what our elected leaders and other senior folks are saying  - and THAT seems to change almost weekly 

 

[Jammer]

...and does anyone think that we could maintain the optempo past 2011?
Do we extend tour lengths, cease mid-tour HLTA's (MR, I think we had a face to face on this one before we left, not many people were receptive to that.)
So do we stay at Camp Hero and send the ANA out after telling what to do...not good for the credibility, and anyone knows anything about Afghan culture is aware that cannot be done.
No combat role...nonsense! However deliberate operations larger than Coy size...sure I'll buy that one, but there will be the inevitable mission creep.

 

[PuckChaser]

Guess we won't have a mass exodus of people who joined just to go to Afghanistan, just a whole lot of people wanting on a very small number of spots.

 

[George Wallace]

With so many Trades filling up and closing off recruiting, it may be a time for the Training System to finally start playing 'catchup'. 

 

[Jammer]

With the reorg of the Sigs NCM trades It'll be a while before we get anyone here though the pipeline now.

 

[PuckChaser]

With the reorg of the Sigs NCM trades It'll be a while before we get anyone here though the pipeline now.

Is that not dead yet? Or is it one of those things they just stop talking about so everyone thinks it went away, and then BAM.