• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadians deploying to AFG (early days, merged)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spr Earl
  • Start date Start date
This, from today's Globe and Mail, is interesting.   (See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050213.wafgha0213/BNStory/International/ )   If I understand what I hear and read doubling our troop strength in Afghanistan will mean that the very NCOs who are needed to staff training establishments to help train the new 5,000 will not be available for another year or so.   Is that how others read it?

Canada to nearly double number of troops in Afghanistan

Sunday, February 13, 2005 Updated at 1:14 PM EST
Associated Press

Munich â ” Canada will nearly double its troop strength in Afghanistan to about 1,100 by this summer, Defense Minister Bill Graham told The Associated Press on Sunday.

Canada currently has 600 troops serving in the Afghan capital of Kabul with NATO's International Security Assistance Force and plans to put a provincial reconstruction team, or PRT, in the southern city of Kandahar by August, Graham said.

The PRT, which aims to boost stability by working on humanitarian projects such as building schools and clinics, would be part of an overall expansion of peacekeepers into the southern region later this year.

"Canada will be there for establishing a PRT in Kandahar in August, that will be the first step," Mr. Graham told the AP on the sidelines of an international security conference in Munich. "We will have the 600 in Kabul still, so that means we'll be up to the 1,000 to 1,100 range."

At a NATO defense ministers' meeting in France on Thursday, Canada expressed willingness to take a leading role in the Kandahar area. That could include adding a brigade of 700-1,200 troops to the region in spring 2006, ready to participate in combat operations, in addition to the PRT, Graham said.

A final decision on whether to send the brigade has not yet been made.

"If we were to put the additional brigade in, obviously it would be part of Operation Enduring Freedom," he said, using the name of Washington's military operation in Afghanistan.

If the combat brigade is sent in, Mr. Graham said the Kabul-based peacekeepers would likely come home, although those being sent to Kandahar would remain.

He emphasized, however, that the exact Canadian role in Kandahar will depend on many factors, including the stability of the region, and it "is something that is being fleshed out at this time."

Canada supports the U.S. push to integrate the NATO mission in Iraq with the U.S.-led mission currently fighting remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan but is still studying how closely the two forces should be fused, Graham said.

"We would favor what's appropriate for the region," he said.

 
I don't read that ROJ.  There are the permanent staff at the schools already that wouldn't be touched plus summer time add-ons.  Whether thats reserves or reg I think the staff will be there.

Unless I'm reading it wrong.
 
I wonder if the military planners anticipated this already and if the CDS has factored this into his new plan.
 
I think it was figured in.  We complete a yr on high overseas manning levels last yr with the first 2 rotos in Kabul, draw down in Bosnia, and the tour to Haiti. Roto 2 and 3 does not have an AOR to patrol and is really just there as to maintain CJ and continue on a few key roles (HUMINT, recce support to ISAF, CIMIC, and ETT) prior to revitalising a new battle group sized contingent with its own AOR and possibly command roles in ISAF HQ again this fall. In addition to this, add the PRT presence into the Kandahar region and you'll have a doubling of current troops strength to ISAF to a level over (probably) 2500 personnel.

Also supporting Op Enduring freedom would not be the same as the boys knew it in '02. Drug intradiction is the new game in the out laying regions of Afghanistan now. So if that tasks comes out, and troops are pulled from Kabul, I see ops in support of that goal, not only against the Taliban, but also against the (still) powerful area warlords who control the drug trade and its money, like the HiG, for example.
 
Drug intradiction is the new game in the out laying regions of Afghanistan now.

So now we are police.  Is this the official policy?  Sound like a Tom Clancy novel.
 
CFL said:
Drug intradiction is the new game in the out laying regions of Afghanistan now.

So now we are police. Is this the official policy? Sound like a Tom Clancy novel.

Check on Google, for example...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0125/p07s01-wosc.html

Crop spraying draws controversy in Afghan drug fight

The US may scrap or divert $152 million earmarked for aerial poppy eradication in Afghanistan this year.

By Halima Kazem | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN â “ Shortly after becoming Afghanistan's first democratically elected president, Hamid Karzai declared war on one of his country's most lucrative exports: opium. Three months on, the president has won an early skirmish over tactics by prevailing upon the US to shelve plans for aerial spraying of Afghan poppy crops.
Crop spraying is a major part of Washington's war on drugs in Latin America. But in Afghanistan, where income from the crop is crucial to many farmers, spraying has proved controversial.

Last November, the Karzai government protested when, without its knowledge, fields in two Afghan provinces were sprayed with a "mysterious substance." Both the US and British governments denied any involvement, but Afghan government officials say the US military controls that airspace.

The US had earmarked $780 million this year for Afghanistan's drug fight, including $300 million for eradication and $152 million for aerial spraying due to start in March. Now, the US State Department is reportedly reworking the budget proposal, possibly removing funds for spraying.

"We don't know the side effects of spraying. Also, Afghans are not used to seeing this kind of thing [spraying], it could be seen as an attack on the people not just the poppy crops. That is a dangerous road to take," says Gen. Mohammed Daud, Head of the Anti-Narcotics Department at the Ministry of Interior.

By ruling out crop spraying, the government has removed one of the few quick methods of combating the opium trade. But many analysts say that development efforts, such as finding alternatives for farmers, are more likely to succeed in the long run.

"[Spraying] is a ridiculous and shameful misallocation of resources, reflecting the political agenda of a few people in Washington," says Barnett Rubin, a professor at New York University and former adviser to the UN in Afghanistan. "Fortunately, faced with the united opposition of the Afghan government and the severe doubts of much of the US government and all US allies, they are now backing off and may reprogram funding for aerial eradication to alternative livelihoods."

According to a recent UN report, Afghanistan pumps out 87 percent of the world's opium and its heroin derivatives. The drug is planted in all 34 provinces of the country and can bring in 10 times the income of other crops. The trade in 2004 reaped $2.8 billion, up more than 20 percent from the previous year, and now makes up an estimated 60 percent of Afghanistan's legal economy.

Drug trafficking has also become a major source of income for Al Qaeda and the Taliban, a fact that has deepened US concerns.

"Virtually anything in Afghanistan that is funded by something other than foreign aid is funded by drug profits. According to reports, drug income in the south is sometimes split among various tribes, with a portion going to local Taliban," says Mr. Rubin.

The US military has so far shied away from playing a more active role in combating drugs in Afghanistan. Analysts say that US military involvement could overly tax its forces, and prove more expensive and time-consuming than mobilizing the Afghan government to tackle the problem.

Afghanistan currently has 1,000 trained and active counternarcotics personnel, about 600 of whom are in the provinces, burning and destroying poppy fields on the ground.

But officials say at least 4,000 officers are needed to actively monitor and destroy poppy farms, and another 5,000 to control the country's porous borders.

While ruling out crop spraying, Karzai is advocating another controversial tactic. In a recent press conference Karzai told reporters that he was considering offering amnesty to former drug traffickers with the hopes that they will lead the Afghan government to the bigger drug lords.

"We are discussing the amnesty issue. We need to make sure that the plan doesn't backfire on us and the big drug lords slip out of our hands," says General Daud.

However, in a country without any kind of formal national identification system, verifying drug traffickers and the identities of drug lords will be a major challenge. And with some 2.3 million Afghans involved in the drug trade the task becomes harder.

Some members of Karzai's Cabinet suggest a "bottom up" approach to the poppy dilemma. Afghanistan's newly appointed counternarcotics minister, Habibullah Qaderi, believes that subsidies and cash incentives should be given to encourage farmers to drop poppies and plant other cash crops.

Qaderi has suggested that the Afghan government pay the farmers involved in cultivating opium at least double the market price for crops such as rice, wheat, and cotton. But subsidies could cost upward of $1 billion for one year, more than has been promised by the US government for the entire antinarcotics effort over three years.

"We can't really beat a $2 to $3 billion-a-year industry with this type of money," said Omar Zakhilwal, chief policy adviser at the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development.

Afghanistan's long drought compounds the difficulty of finding alternative crops. Poppies require very little water to thrive.

Rubin also warns against eradicating poppy farms too quickly or before taking out the traffickers and the drug lords, as many farmers are still financially indebted to their "bosses" and could revolt against the Karzai government.

"You cannot eliminate 40 percent of the total economy [60 percent of the legal economy] in one of the poorest countries in the world through law enforcement," Rubin says. "And you also cannot do it in one year, or in five years. Economic shrinkage is one of the surest predictors of instability and conflict."

The Afghan government is especially concerned about maintaining security going into parliamentary elections that are scheduled for this spring.
 
Roto 2 and 3 does not have an AOR to patrol and is really just there as to maintain CJ and continue on a few key roles (HUMINT, recce support to ISAF, CIMIC, and ETT) prior to revitalising a new battle group sized contingent with its own AOR and possibly command roles in ISAF HQ again this fall. In addition to this, add the PRT presence into the Kandahar region and you'll have a doubling of current troops strength to ISAF to a level over (probably) 2500 personnel.

Armymedic, although we didn't have an AOR the 700 Canadians "punched" above their weight for ISAF during Roto 2.  In fact, most of the success acheived by ISAF involved Canadian assets.  Future (next year or two) increases to Canadian numbers in Afghanistan will be under Op Enduring Freedom (US led) vice under ISAF.  Good luck on Roto 3. 

Cheers,

 
Gunner said:
Armymedic, although we didn't have an AOR the 700 Canadians "punched" above their weight for ISAF during Roto 2. In fact, most of the success acheived by ISAF involved Canadian assets. 

I guess my poor choice of words suggested that because we don't have an AOR, we are not accomplishing anything there. Obviously this is not the case, as every member of the size reduced contingent has a vital role in the continuing success of ISAF and Afghanistan.
 
Maybe its just me, but is this another way for the Liberals to keep the CF out of Iraq.  By comminting more troops to Afghanistan, it leaves martin with an easy way to say no without saying NO to Bush.
 
"But its not like were not needed in A Stan"

Truly true, I think the CF will do a better job and will be more important in Afghanistan that in Iraq.  But that's not why the Liberals are doing it.. which is my point.  They just want a reason to have their No look okay.  This might work with Troops, but hopefully Martin is smart enough to know he can't say NO to missile defence.  If he does then just want kinda of ally is Canada to the US.
 
Maybe its just me, but is this another way for the Liberals to keep the CF out of Iraq.  By comminting more troops to Afghanistan, it leaves martin with an easy way to say no without saying NO to Bush.

Good conspiracy theory but you're wrong.  The US has been pushing for other NATO countries to take more responsibility in Afghanistan in order to free up its soldiers and concentrate on Iraq.  Increased Canadian and NATO forces in Afghanistan is seen as desirable for the US.  Not sure if you have ever worked in a multinational environment but as soon as you start adding different nationalitiies into the mix, the effectiveness of the organization begins to deteriorate (he says with a sigh after living under Eurocorps for six months).

of course it is.  But its not like were not needed in A Stan

Afghanistan isn't in the news alot lately but it remains a volatile situation.  Daily attacks occur in the southern and south eastern areas of the country.  If the US wasn't there (with all their bells and whistles) the country would slide back into anarchy pretty quick.  The Taliban, HiG, and Al Queda are not defeated merely laying low and doing what they have always done in the presence of a superior enemy. 

Cheers,
 
I second Gunner's comments here. IMHO (having had some involvement in the PRT planning process here) we are not trying to avoid Iraq: we have already clearly stated that we aren't going to deploy formed units. What we are doing, again IMHO, is rebuilding our relationship with the US (desperately needed) through the medium of Afghanistan. We are also finding a place where our currently quite limited contribution can make a good bang for buck. Having spent six months here working inside the HQ of CJTF76, I am very certain that the US hold us in good regard as soldiers (I'm not talking about what they think about me.....) and would be most grateful for an Inf Bn group to go into the operational area along the border with Pakistan. They need high-quality allied Inf and they don't have any.

Contrary to the comments of some, the US military presence in OEF is not about to become "drug police". IMHO there is a considerable amount of concern amongst US commanders about how this drug eradication will be done: they understand very clearly that if it is done stupidly, or done at the wrong time, there is a huge risk of setting back all they have done so far, which is considerable. We have NOT yet defeated the enemy (and I use "we" advisedly because IMHO he is our enemy too: we are not on a "neutral" UN mission despite the wishes of some Euro-tourist types that were running ISAF here recently.). The US is engaging in combat ops as we speak. The National Elections have not even happened yet: these pose a huge potential security threat and if they are not successful IMHO drug programs will not matter because we risk the whole place sliding into the ditch during Roto 3. (Keep your sights up, R3 folks...)

OEF is a very complex operation, covering the entire spectrum from humanitarian aid to combat ops. Alot of Canadians (especially our media) fail to understand the huge range of effort the US military are engaged in, and characterize them as just doing combat. Of course combat is important, and so is counter narcotics, but they all fit together like the pieces of a clock: if you screw up one piece the others will not work.

As for the PRT: I must say that I am as shocked as anybody to hear of its potential size. This would make it about twice the size of the average US PRT, with a much stronger military presence that I had expected. This will be great for the military but I wonder what all these people will do? Perhaps (IMHO) this is the first step of establishing Kandahar as our base (good move in my opinion-Kabul is gradually becoming a backwater...). Given the strong indications that we will contribute an Inf Bn TF in 06, this would make sense.

Maybe the near future will finally see us back where the hot action is in Afghanistan, alongside our US allies instead of trying to be the backbone for a bunch of Euro-floppers in Kabul. Just my jaundiced, end-tour opinion.

Cheers, and my best wishes to the new folks on R3: you may find yourself living in interesting times. Stay safe and stay alert.

 
Canadian troops taking part in the
American-led anti-terrorism war in Afghanistan will be soon
replaced by Romanian troops, it is reported here Friday.
  A report by the local newspaper the OTTAWA Citizen said that
Romania will send 485 soldiers to Afghanistan to take over from
the Canadian battalion currently operating in Kandahar.
  Senior Canadian forces officials are expected to inform the
government that because of commitments at home and around the
world, the military can not continue to support the mission in
Afghanistan, the report said.
  Romanian troops could be in Afghanistan as early as July 15,
the report said, quoting a Romanian government representative.
  However, a Canadian military spokesperson said no decision has
been made on whether the 880 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan will
return home.  Enditem 


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2002-05/18/content_398582.htm
 
I think its a fake or something. Especially since its dated May17, is this  even a credible news site?
 
Back
Top