John Manley's Report On Afganistan-Due Jan 22/ 2008

[gage]

I like the ideas of Manley's report if that counts for something.
I do have one small problem with it and that's if the UN doesn't step up
it seems the public doesn't understand all the reasons where there( not that i do either)
one good reason is to help the afghan people, but i believe we are helping are self's all so.
The general public isn't scared of going about there life they don't have a little voice
in there head thinking about the group they are with and the amount of people around
hoping that today is not the day it comes to Canada.
I believe it will one day come to are nation but if we fix the problem at the source than maybe
not as bad as it could be

 

[The Bread Guy]

By my read of the report 1,000 soldiers is the difference between the status quo & the bare minimum in Kandahar alone.

How about a more political read?  "1K is the minimum required to show NATO really DOES want to get 'er done in AFG"

Also, just spotted this as well, with USA SecDef on the "Manley Thousand" and how the USMC mini-surge doesn't count:

(....)
Q    Mr. Secretary, this week the Canadian government issued a report from an independent commission that said that the Canadian military should only stay in Kandahar, the Kandahar area, if NATO can come up with another thousand troops in February 2009 to help reinforce what's going on down there. Can you see a scenario where the U.S. Marines who are headed to that area could stay beyond seven months to help the Canadians and the others down there?

            SEC. GATES: No, the Marines have -- this is a one-time plus-up, this 3,200 Marines that we're sending over there. But I have started a dialogue with my NATO colleagues about falling in behind the Marines when the Marines come out, for others to go in and take on some of the responsibilities that they have -- that they will have carried out.

            My hope is that, using the vehicles of the meetings in Vilnius and the summit meeting in -- the NATO summit in Bucharest, plus the fact that we're talking about some months from now, may elicit a more positive reaction and provide the kind of additional support that the Canadians -- that, based on what you just said, the Manning report has just called for -- Manley report.

            Q    Do you think it's achievable to get that kind of additional troops in there by that time?

            SEC. GATES: I certainly hope so.

CBC Online's take on this answer:

U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that 3,200 marines headed to southern Afghanistan will not provide the Canadian Forces there with the additional troop support recommended by the Manley report.  The marines, slated to stay for seven months following their spring departure, will be on a one-time assignment, Gates said during a Pentagon press briefing.  He said he will be putting pressure on NATO to provide more troops to bolster coalition war efforts in Afghanistan's turbulent south.....

 

[MarkOttawa]

M. Dion starting to see the light (usual copyright disclaimer)?
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=fb499128-ef13-4f21-a853-9403250cf4c8

Liberal leader Stéphane Dion yesterday reiterated his party's position on the Afghan mission -- that Canada's involvement in combat must end in 2009 -- but added his party was "open to debate."

An independent panel led by John Manley, a former Liberal cabinet minister, this week released its report on Canada's mission in southern Afghanistan. The five-member panel called for Canada to remain in the region beyond the mission's scheduled end in 2009, provided NATO allies offer additional troops.

The report also called for the Conservatives to supply much-needed transport helicopters to minimize dangers to Canadian troops from roadside bombs, which are responsible for most of the country's 78 military fatalities in Afghanistan.

Mr. Manley said yesterday his party should be aware that it was the Liberals who first initiated the Kandahar mission.

"Quite frankly, I think the challenge for my party here is that this was a mission initiated by our party ... when Paul Martin was prime minister.

Speaking in Toronto, Mr. Dion said he was waiting to see how the Conservative government would react to the report.

"The question is: Will the 1,000 troops make a difference? What will they do?" he said. "This is certainly something that we are open to debate ... but our view has been very clear."

Members of Mr. Manley's panel have also suggested the government delay any debate in the House of Commons on the Afghan mission until after NATO leaders meet in April.

This is a reasonable recommendation, Mr. Dion said. "There is no rush to vote right away."

Mark
Ottawa

 

[JesseWZ]

This is a reasonable recommendation, Mr. Dion said. "There is no rush to vote right away."

My head is spinning. Wasn't there a thread or a link or something on here awhile ago that kept tabs on Mr. Dions political merry go rounds?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Scott Taylor, in a column dismissing the report, accused Canada of a racist policy:
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2008/01/25/4792858-sun.html

...
The big recommendation from Manley was, of course, the shift from focusing on combat to the training the Afghan National Army (ANA).

Once again, this is something the Canadian military has been promoting for months.

Unfortunately, this new report makes no real concrete suggestions towards the establishment of professional Afghan military cadres such as the medical, logistics, police, legal and engineering officers required to make the ANA a stand-alone force.

Instead, this report implies a stay-the-course extension of our instructors' churning out of Afghan infantry units. If we don't begin to create an educated, literate, professional Afghan army, NATO will never be able to disengage.

On Canada AM, I had expressed the opinion that this current program constituted essentially a racist policy to which John Manley came on the air laughing derisively. "How can it be racist to expect the Afghans to do the fighting?" he chortled. "It's their country."

RACIST

As I could not add further clarification at the time, I offer to do so now: To send Afghans into battle alongside our soldiers with a drastically reduced standard of training, weaponry, and protective equipment is racist. And that's not a laughing matter Mr. Manley.

The Manley report was a missed opportunity for Canada to change direction while continuing our commitment to the people of Afghanistan.

How low...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[NL_engineer]

:

Don't these people have anything better to do then bash the CF  :

 

[FSTO]

Scott Taylor, in a column dismissing the report, accused Canada of a racist policy:
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2008/01/25/4792858-sun.html
How low...

Mark
Ottawa

Our ever astute cpl has just discovered that a military needs a logistic tail. This is his new mantra and now that the NATO trainers are getting soldiers in the field, he feels that it is a failure that there isn't a fully modern logistic and administrative tail that is at the same level as the NATO armies in theatre.

There is just no pleasing some people.

 

[JesseWZ]

I guess he doesn't realize that it takes at least 6-8 years to put a doctor through med school...
Or minimum 2 years to put a sup tech through training...
What about engineers, those courses take forever...

 

[sgf]

two years to put a supply tech thru training? are you talking about their trade qualification course?

 

[JesseWZ]

I meant between enrollment to the date that they were deemed an operational supply tech. However I am a bit outside my lane I must admit so I could be wrong.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>To send Afghans into battle alongside our soldiers with a drastically reduced standard of training, weaponry, and protective equipment is racist.

WTF?  Is this drivel what passes for informed commentary?  We don't send Afghans into battle; Afghans send Afghans into battle.  It is quite a unique feat for a people to be racist against themselves.  I'll tell you what most people would find racist: the notion that Afghans are too primitive or violent or ill-prepared to manage their own affairs, so that we must do it all for them.

As badly misused as the word "racist" is and despite the frequency with which it happens, that statement certainly wins the prize for Least Intelligent Use of All Time.

 

[vonGarvin]

>To send Afghans into battle alongside our soldiers with a drastically reduced standard of training, weaponry, and protective equipment is racist.

WTF?  Is this drivel what passes for informed commentary?  We don't send Afghans into battle; Afghans send Afghans into battle.  It is quite a unique feat for a people to be racist against themselves.  I'll tell you what most people would find racist: the notion that Afghans are too primitive or violent or ill-prepared to manage their own affairs, so that we must do it all for them.
As badly misused as the word "racist" is and despite the frequency with which it happens, that statement certainly wins the prize for Least Intelligent Use of All Time.

You hit the nail right on the head!  The "brown people" aren't really people (so sayeth the "enlightened" white people), therefore, we excuse their acts when the same act, done by a "white" person, would be viewed (rightly so) as inexcusable.  Makes me shake my head.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

It's a favorite tactic of the left to try and label an argument an "ism" ie racism, sexism, etc. They then believe that the debate is over and they have won.

 

[sgf]

interesting article in The Toronto Sun, from Eric Margolis

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2008/01/27/4796414-sun.php

 

[MarkOttawa]

sgf: Margolis is a raging anti-Afghan mission poseur, to whose words absolutely no worth should be given.  "Interesting" my...He's the guy in 2001 who said, as efforts to overthrow the Taliban were getting underway, that those efforts would face grave problems from "the brutal Afghan winter".  My...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Teflon]

sgf: Margolis is a raging anti-Afghan mission poseur, to whose words absolutely no worth should be given.  "Interesting" my...He's the guy in 2001 who said, as efforts to overthrow the Taliban were getting underway, that those efforts would face grave problems from "the brutal Afghan winter".  My...

Mark
Ottawa

I find Margolis' main motivation to be Anti-Americian more then anti-Afghan mission, as he sees Afghanistan as America's war, he doesn't like our present government because everything that comes out of their yaps isn't insulting or negative to Bush and U.S., He would advocate surrender if Canada was attacked and the U.S. offered to help us in defence. The man is a one issue journalist and anything he writes about will some how relate back to his Anti-Americanism, even if you have wait till the next days column for it to spew to the surface.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Saving Afghanistan

National Post, Jan, 26 
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=265065

Re: We Need NATO Help: Manley, Jan. 23.

The Manley panel correctly identified the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan by recommending that 1,000 extra troops be sent to Kandahar. However, NATO overall would need to double its ground troop capacity to 80,000 and remove all caveats of where troops are deployed, if it is to have any chance of halting the insurgency's momentum. Indeed, recent Senlis Council research indicates that the Taliban now have a presence in 54% of Afghanistan.

NATO forces must also be permitted to enter Pakistan, alongside the Pakistani military, to root out Taliban bases [emphasis added]. Without going across the border to deal with these safe havens, it will be impossible to stop the Afghan insurgency.

Finally, Canada must have an effective counter-narcotics strategy for Afghanistan. The Senlis Council would like to see farmers allowed to grow opium for the production of painkillers, such as morphine.

Continuing to follow failed U.S.-led policies such as forced poppy crop eradication will only push locals into the arms of the Taliban, sabotaging any prospects of bringing stability to Afghanistan.

Norine MacDonald, president and lead field researcher, The Senlis Council, Kabul, Afghanistan.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Prime Minister Harper misspeaks--he has just given a statement supporting the recommendations of the Manley panel (video second link).
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080128/harper_manley_080128/20080128?hub=TopStories
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg&hub=TopStories&video_link_high=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2008/01/28/ctvvideologger3_201190437_1201539931_500kbps.wmv&video_link_low=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2008/01/28/ctvvideologger3_201190436_1201538382_218kbps.wmv&clip_start=00:08:16.26&clip_end=00:09:46.58&clip_caption=CTV%20Newsnet:%20Stephen%20Harper%20speaks%20from%20Ottawa&clip_id=ctvnews.20080128.00231000-00231073-clip1&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20080128&slug=harper_manley_080128&archive=CTVNews
Then, near the end of answering questions from the media (around 1241 Eastern Time), he either lied or demonstrated he does not know what his government is doing.

Mr Harper was asked about the Manley panel's demand that new medium-lift helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) be acquired by next February to support the Afghan mission. He replied that these are "on order" and mentioned difficulties in securing delivery places on already-committed production lines. But neither the helicopters nor the UAVs are "on order".

The government itself recently officially stated that, while the helicopter procurement process for the helicopters is well underway, the award of an actual contract is only "expected by the end of 2008." (See "3. Medium- to Heavy-Lift Helicopters" at link.)
http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=372519

As for UAVs, the air force officer in charge of the project said in October 2007 that "...officials hope to get the first aircraft into Afghanistan "within months" of the contract being signed next year."
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/10/05/pf-4553523.html

No contract has yet been signed.  Nothing is "on order". Pitiful.

The prime minister went on to say that the government would look to NATO to provide the required capabilities by February 2009.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[OldSolduer]

First of all realize Eric Margolis IS anti-American...period. He's rarely had anything good to say about the USA, and eve more so when there is a sitting Republican President.

Secondly, Scott Taylor is not an expert in anything. He did his time in the military to launch his journalism career. His magazines were at one time on the service flights, until he got a bit too critical of NDHQ. Then it was canned.
He loves to criticize senior officers, but Mr. Taylor has never spent a day in their shoes. He does not have or know the responsibilites these gentlemen have undertaken.

 

[The Bread Guy]

And what political decision would be complete without polling data?  Survey says....

Canadians Receive Manley Plan Cautiously
Country Still Split On Mission
Ipsos Reid news release, 26 Jan 08
News release - Detailed tables

On the heels of the Manley report concerning the future of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, a new Ipsos Reid poll conducted exclusively on behalf of CanWest News Service and Global Television finds that Canadians have given the recommendations a mixed review. One third of Canadians (35%) believe that the recommendations made by Manley comprise a ‘good’ (29%) or ‘great’ plan (6%) for Canada’s troops currently stationed in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

The recommendation that Canada gradually shift its focus to a less combative role after February of 2009, provided that 1,000 additional troops be deployed to Afghanistan by Canada's allies, and that Canada receives new medium-lift helicopters and other aircraft to assist with the job, was given a ‘fair’ assessment by nearly four in ten (36%) Canadians. One quarter (22%), though, say that these recommendations are a ‘bad plan’, while 7% had no opinion.

Regardless of the panel’s report, the country remains split on support for the current mission in Afghanistan. Fully one half (50%) of Canadians (down one point since August of last year) indicate that they support (22% strongly/28% somewhat) ‘the use of Canada’s troops for combat efforts against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan’. However, nearly one half (46%) of the country remains opposed (27% strongly/19% somewhat) to the mission, an increase of one point since August. Four percent (4%) of Canadians do not know if they support or oppose the mission.

Finally, if given the option to decide the fate of Canada’s troops after the current combat mission expires in February of 2009, 37% of Canadians would opt to bring our troops home, a decrease of seven points since October of 2007. Fourteen percent (14%) would extend our current mission (unchanged), while nearly one half (45%) of Canadians would have our troops remain in Afghanistan but ‘have them do something like train Afghani soldiers or police officers’ (up five points since October). Four percent (4%) do not know what they would have the troops do beyond next February.

Regional Highlights….

    * Residents of Atlantic Canada are the most likely (47%) to say that the plan is at least ‘good’, followed by those in Ontario (39%), British Columbia (37%), Alberta (32%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (31%) and Quebec (27%). However, residents of Ontario (26%) and Quebec (22%) are most likely to say that this is a ‘bad plan’ for Canadian troops.

    * A majority of residents of Alberta (61%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (59%), Ontario (56%), Atlantic Canada (54%) and British Columbia (53%) support the current mission in Afghanistan. Just one third (33%) Quebecers support the mission.

    * Men (54%) are significantly more likely than women (47%) to support the mission in Afghanistan.

    * Residents of Saskatchewan and Manitoba (42%) and Quebec (41%) are more likely than those living in BC (38%), Atlantic Canada (36%), Ontario (36%) and Alberta (25%) to say that the troops should come home after February of next year.

    * Albertans (18%) are the most likely to want an extension to the current mission, followed by those in British Columbia (15%), Saskatchewan and Manitoba (15%), Quebec (14%), Ontario (13%) and Atlantic Canada (9%).

    * Albertans (53%) are also the most likely to say that Canada’s troops should remain in Afghanistan but be redirected to a less combative role, followed by those in Atlantic Canada (49%), Ontario (47%), British Columbia (46%), Quebec (42%) and Saskatchewan and Manitoba (35%).

These are the findings of an Ipsos Reid poll conducted on behalf of CanWest News Service and Global Television from January 22 to January 24, 2008. For the survey, a representative randomly selected sample of 1001 adult Canadians was interviewed by telephone. With a sample of this size, the results are considered accurate to within ±3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, of what they would have been had the entire adult population of Canada been polled. The margin of error will be larger within regions and for other sub-groupings of the survey population. These data were weighted to ensure that the sample's regional and age/sex composition reflects that of the actual Canadian population according to Census data.....