Taliban commander defects... after recieving help from Canadian soldiers

[GAP]

A lot of the fever tends to go out of people busy living their lives and advocating change within legal means.

They have a say, some changes will probably be made that we would consider weird, but the Afghans will do it their way. Some drug dealers are already in the government and they are being publicly identified and decried. Not successfully, but time is what the country needs.

 

[Nemo888]

These people have been under someone’s boot for my whole life. We seem to be making headway by being civilized, something many Afghani’s may not have seen in their lifetimes. Food, medicine, protection and the right to get educated are weapons to destroy the enemy. (Often cheaper than more raw firepower too.)  But kill the tribal warlords of course, nobody will miss them.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

What a better way to undermine an insurgency then to co-opt it, no?

Exactly!!

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Maybe what Infanteer didn't like Mr. Baker was that you are a brother in arms taking a cheap shot at us.....the media, well who cares anyway, but you?

...and just on a note,....riddle me this Batman, if this person had been brought to an American base are you saying he would have been left out front to die? Sure sounds like you are.....

 

[paracowboy]

Baker,

as you should very well know, we spend a great deal of effort on this site squashing any sort of Jan Brady anti-America bullshit. It is not tolerated, and we exert considerable effort into educating the sort of people that spout off those knee-jerk Leftist slogans.

So, what bothers me, specifically, as well as many others here, are your constant attacks on Canada. A little reciprocity would be more professional, not to mention simply polite.

 

[tomahawk6]

Since when did the Taliban become "terrorists"?

When they began their campaign of attacks upon Afghan civilians.

 

[pbi]

Maybe what Infanteer didn't like Mr. Baker was that you are a brother in arms taking a cheap shot at us.....the media, well who cares anyway, but you?

...and just on a note,....riddle me this Batman, if this person had been brought to an American base are you saying he would have been left out front to die? Sure sounds like you are.....

Well...when I was over there in 04/05, the US Army Gen Hosp in BAF was full of Afghan civvies, and the most common type of medevac was to bring in Afghans (usually civvies) who had been injured in some way. The above is probably an equally unfair shot. I still think that most people (and in this I include the US public at large) have a very narrow and distorted view of what the US forces in Afgh have done and are doing. I watched the US folks struggle with it, up close, for six months. IMHO they were trying to the right thing, under very difficult circumstances that included pressures from both sides of the ocean.

IMHO we will probably never see things exactly the same way the US does: that wouldn't make sense. Our political cultures are too different (and, if you read "Fire and Ice", getting further apart every day). The roles our countries have picked out for themselves (or have been given, depending on your POV..) also make us see things differently. US right-wing mouth foaming about "Canuckistan", or Canadian Maude Barlow/Polaris moral superiority pedestal-hopping are equally useless and divisive, especially when the media (in both countries) tends to depict these views as being "the way they all think down/up there".

Americans piss me off sometimes. I'm sure we do the same to them. That isn't the point. The point is to focus on what interests we have in common, which is making sure that we have secure (but liveable) societies for our kids to grow up in. People like Al-Qaeda and the Taleban, and some of our own domestic trouble makers, don't want that.

Happy Fathers' Day

Cheers

 

[Infanteer]

When they began their campaign of attacks upon Afghan civilians.

Does that make them any different from all the other combatants within Afghanistan in the last 30 years?  Hell, with that definition, half the warlords we have in Kabul are also terrorists.

Since there is useful discussion in this, it can stay open.

 

[paracowboy]

T6,
the problem with using the sort of umbrella-term, is that you can lose the nuances, thus hampering attempts to tailor your responses to the specific threat.

Calling every fighter in A-stan "Taliban" means you treat them all the same. Not every dumbass shooting at us is an Islamic fundamentalist, trained in a madrassa - which is what a Talib is. Many are narco-dealers, others are misguided patriots who honestly believe we're the same as the Soviets, some others are shooting at us out of a sense of insulted personal/family honour. We have to know who the enemy is, and how to defang the ones we don't have to kill.

It carries over into the big fight: We can't use the exact same tactics against Jamaat-i-Islami, as we do against Hamas. Same basic concepts, sure, but we have to tailor the specifics somewhat. And using generic catch phrases is counter-productive.

 

[tomahawk6]

I understand your context, but I don't agree. Probably a difference in culture. If they are shooting at you they are treated one way. I don't care what their motivation is to take up arms against us,just the fact that they have taken up arms for the taliban make them the enemy.They certainly do not support the government in Kabul.Those less committed to the taliban cause may in time become disillusioned.

I think the game plan the CF had on going into Afghanistan didnt survive first contact with the enemy.Canadian operations now are aggressive and have forced the enemy to reevaluate their operations against the Canadian Army. The marines went into Anbar province in Iraq with a Vietnam COIN approach and were openly critical of Army tactics. Their game plan didnt survive contact with the enemy. The Brit's went into Basra with sufficient troops to  control the city but over time drew down their forces so that they were unable to influence the operation of the city and the militants came in and took over in the vacuum. In a way it was a pact with the devil, dont attack us and we will leave you alone.The pact seem's to have been broken though. Tactics is fair game for criticism. But behind the tactics are the soldier making the best of a dangerous environment. The soldiers are professionals all no matter their country. They are superior to the best the enemy has to offer.The trick is to arrive at a strategy/tactics to maximize our strengths to the detriment of the enemy cause.

 

[GAP]

I think what we are seeing now is, "Leave no place untouched". Excellent Idea... The longer you leave the Taliban areas to gain a foothold and a following, the longer you will be there.

The Kabul government has to get it's act together pretty quick, because, once an area is "cleansed", the hearts and mind operation must immediately follow, or you have lost. Catchup will not work, simply because you have reinforced everything the Taliban have been telling them.

 

[Armymedic]

Tactics, etc a side,

Lets not insult each others intelligence when we name the threats we are facing in the world.

I will only speak of Afghanistan to stay in my lane, "The Taliban" to the general Canadian population is a sufficient term to identify the threat in the country. To us soldiers on the ground we need to know, and most do know, that the Taliban supporters are just one of various anti coalition organizations threats that are resisting the central govt. AQ, opium distributors and certain warlords are also against the central govt, but they are not Taliban.

Does this make it any less of a threat to those on the ground? No. Does it mean we have to be more vigilant to details of operations for each attack (IED or otherwise) to ensure we are still fighting the same group of baddies in any given region? Yes.

Sound we muddy the waters here at home trying to explain the complexity of the threat to civilians here at home? Not a chance, lets keep it simple.

We here are all fighting the same fight, each country's motives and methods may be slightly different....but the goal is the same.

Finally, if we can win the war by killing all the enemy, great. If we can win the war by convincing them to lay down their arms because they will never win, better. But if we can win their loyalty by showing them that we are there to help them build a country and a future for their children, that is the way to win this one.

 

[paracowboy]

I understand your context, but I don't agree. Probably a difference in culture. If they are shooting at you they are treated one way.

more likely, a difference in training than culture. Alberta has more in common with Texas than Ontario. But, our Infantry goes by a slightly different playbook than the US, or UK. The speed with which we can shift from "fat & lazy mode" to "psycho-killbot" tends to shock other armies, in my experience.

I don't care what their motivation is to take up arms against us,just the fact that they have taken up arms for the taliban make them the enemy.

granted, but rather than use napalm and tac-nukes with some, we can get better results with CIMIC and HUMINT. Others we have to cleanse completely.

They certainly do not support the government in Kabul.

because there has never been one, before. We are creating an entirely new and foreign concept there. The hill tribes have never acknowledged any real authority over them, from the time of Alexander of Macedon. Bludgeoning them into submission will not work. It never has, and it never will. That's why the Anglosphere forces are blanketing the area with PRTs. Hearts and Minds where-ever possible, blood and guts where not.

I think the game plan the CF had on going into Afghanistan didnt survive first contact with the enemy.

not so. Aggressive, violent action was always part of the game plan, from the moment we were told we were going into Kabul on Roto 0 to right now. Every troop is well aware, and comfortable with knowing, that at any moment they may very well have to dump a mag into someone. Anyone who isn't, was not paying attention during the Mission Brief, work-up training, or plane ride over.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Jeez, I hate to see any pissing match here drawn along Canadian/American lines 

I think perhaps it is a function of the posting process that it is easy to lose the non-verbal nuances of an argument.  Misinterpretation is pretty easy.
I completely understand why the US might have a bit of resentment and mistrust of how sincere the Canadian effort is.  They have been the police to the planet for years, and really got boned in the media by our Lieberal leaders over Iraq.  As well, when they say things like "Canada is a safe haven for terrorism" they are completely right.  Yes, we do have laws to combat terrorism.  And you see how accepted they are, right?  You have the highest court in the land wondering if it is nice or not to keep an identified terrorist in jail or not.  To an American, this must appear to be the pinnacle of idiocy.  An entire panel of judiciary has to decide if whether or not it is fair to lock up a terrorist?  (BTW, this Canadian thinks that too).  You have a successful arrest of a terrorist cell and a narrowly avoided catastrophe that is constantly referenced to the Oklahoma tragedy, yet for every five minutes of "boy we dodged a bullet, good job lads" you have two hours of "SLIPPERY SLOPE, EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE ALL RACIST FOR MUSLIMS NOW, NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF FREEDOM". 
I have a significant amount of contact with the US down here in Windsor, through the media, in direct contact with American citizens (who are not always drunk kids) and unfortunately police memorials and funerals.  For whatever you think about the US, they are a nation of people who act decisively.  This opens them up to criticism after the fact, but by and large you don't see a lot of navel gazing and pissing/moaning when it comes to the safety of their citizens.  9/11 obviously was a huge turning point, but apparently it was only so for them.  The fact that some people still have the "it won't happen here" mindset is chilling to me.  I imagine it is a hell of a thing for the US, knowing that they are the main target for terrorism, and things are still so ungripped up here.  Imagine there were a bunch of groups making killer robot combat monkeys.  The one you are working on goes nuts, and shoots you.  You shut it down as best you can, but it is still twitching and trying to get up to hurt you.  You are calling to the other groups, who are also having problems with their robot monkeys, who are now all making gestures to attack you as well.  You are smashing your robot monkey with a sledge now, and are screaming at the other groups to get a grip on their own units.  The one closest to you, and most difficult to stop, has you dead in it's sights.  Then you notice that the team of handlers for the red/white monkey is talking amongst themselves, deciding if it is fair to the monkey to shut it down, and musing whether or not it really will shoot.  Then the group gets pissy when you jack them up and say "just turn the friggin thing off!", and want an apology. 
THAT BEING SAID, I feel that if the US was going to be openly critical of Canadian policies and involvement, they should have been doing it sooner.  PM Harper is doing the best job he can, putting out as many political brush fires as he can left over from the last bunch of clods (forest fires, really).  We are finally getting on track.  We have a CDS that is a "git 'er done" real soldier.  The intelligence community is getting in stride and getting real results.  I picture Mr. Harper as the one guy in the analogy above trying to pull the plug, with a bunch of others hanging off him trying to drag him down.  I realize that it is pretty cold comfort to our American friends to suggest "just wait a bit.  We're getting there", but none the less, we are getting there. 
In the long run the longer this process takes, the more advantage we supply the terrorists, and the more emboldened they become.  I'm betting Bin Laden didn't get waves of flack for his plans.