Therefore ... we should stay in Afghanistan

[GAP]

This is a compromise concocted by people who will never have to live with the consequences of their actions/words.....it's shyte !!

 

[Edward Campbell]

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, indicates that the compromise might not be there after all – which is why I wanted the word “security” added in my proposed amendment to the Liberal amendment (posted a couple of days ago, in this thread):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080214.welectionafghan14/BNStory/Front

Liberals back away from compromise on troops
Party sends mixed signals a day after a deal with the Conservatives on the future role of the Kandahar battle group seemed in hand

CAMPBELL CLARK

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
February 14, 2008 at 4:27 AM EST

OTTAWA — The Liberals' position on Afghanistan became mired in confusion yesterday when the party's defence critic, Denis Coderre, suggested they want to withdraw the Canadian Forces' main battle group in Kandahar, but other MPs in his party disagreed.

One day after Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion opened the door to compromise with the government by proposing an extension of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, but under a new mandate, Liberals insisted there was still a huge gap to be bridged and Prime Minister Stephen Harper appeared less committed to ending the mission in 2011.

Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez complained that Mr. Harper misrepresented the Liberal proposal to change the mission by ending the "combat" role as support for extending the existing one.

On Tuesday, Mr. Dion proposed that the mission be extended to 2011 under a new mandate to move away from combat toward training the Afghan National Army and providing security for reconstruction efforts. But he said military commanders would decide what fighting was necessary.

Like the government, he called for NATO to send additional troops - he was not clear on how many. But Mr. Dion said that under his proposal those new troops would take over the current tasks of Canadians, so they could focus on training and security.

Yesterday, Mr. Coderre said the difference is that the Conservatives want reinforcements to conduct "business as usual," while the Liberals want replacements so Canadians can do a different type of mission.

When asked whether the Canadian battle group would stay in Kandahar under the Liberal proposal, he said: "No. Not in my book."

"If you really want to have a rotation, it's not to take all the troops and put them in one place, it's to make sure that we will have some that we will be able to recuperate."

He suggested the Liberal position would require at least 800 more NATO troops to take on the tasks of the battle group, separate from the 1,000 reinforcements that John Manley's panel on Afghanistan recommended.

The Canadian Forces' battle group in Kandahar, about 1,200 troops, is the main operations unit for Canada's effort in securing the province.

Removing them, or the 800 infantry soldiers to whom Mr. Coderre referred, would mean slashing the Canadian mission, and the Conservatives would be unlikely to accept that condition.

There about 2,500 Canadian Forces troops in Afghanistan, but many are in command, support and training units, and about 300 provide security for the provincial reconstruction team, or PRT, in Kandahar.

Mr. Coderre was vague when asked whether he meant that the battle group's numbers would be redeployed within Afghanistan or sent home, but said he expects it would be a combination of both.

"The battle group, should we put them to PRTs and to training? I think that we need to recuperate, too, so we'll have to refocus about what does it mean in the status of our troops regarding the mission."

Other Liberals disagreed.

Liberal MP Keith Martin, who was deeply involved in caucus discussions on the Liberal position, said the party is not suggesting the battle group be withdrawn.

"That's not what Mr. Dion is saying at all," he said. "The battle group is involved, and is doing an excellent job of training the Afghan police and army and providing security for development projects, and assistance to our allies."

Mr. Coderre also appeared to differ from Mr. Dion by arguing that it would be inappropriate to head into an election before Parliament has decided on the future of the Afghan mission.

Mr. Dion said Tuesday it would be "irresponsible" for the government to hold a vote on Afghanistan before the Feb. 26 budget, and many Liberals believe their leader wants to trigger an election on the budget vote.

And Mr. Dion applied the brakes to talk that a deal is close. He said that while Mr. Harper suggested he was moving toward the Liberals, his answers in the Commons did not provide reassurance.

When asked whether he would commit to ending the Canadian mission in 2011, Mr. Harper said he will examine the Liberal proposal, but that both parties want to end the mission "around 2011."

"I think we are also clear in our motion, as is the Liberal Party, that the mission should continue beyond 2009, and that we are both seeking an end to the mission around 2011," the Prime Minister said.

Of course the other problem is that M. Dion may have been unable to paper over the deep divisions inside his own party caucus because it looks to me as though either Coderre or Martin is off the page.

To further complicate the issue there is another report (same source) that says:

  Former leadership rival Bob Rae urged Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion yesterday to wait until spring to pull the plug on the minority Harper government rather than forcing an early election over the Tory budget ... Mr. Rae's views were echoed by many MPs and senators at the closed-door national caucus ... Election fever has been spiking on the Hill, with Liberals becoming increasingly undecided about election timing. One day they say they are going to defeat the government on the budget; the next day they back away ... The 60-member Ontario Liberal caucus met before the national caucus yesterday to discuss election timing and the majority told Mr. Dion they did not want to go to the polls now over the budget ... An Atlantic MP echoed that view, saying some would prefer a June election ...

Now that the crime bill is off the table, it’s not clear to me that the Liberals have any real “ballot question” issue except the budget. While I’m fairly sure that a majority of Canadians are opposed, without any particular reason, with principle, to the Afghanistan mission, I’m equally sure that they are not so opposed as to want to fight an election over it. Canadians, are, by and large, confused; they want to be the mythical ’peaceable kingdom’ armed only with baby-blue beret toting ‘peacekeepers’ but they also want to ‘do something’ about the latest outrage that manages to shoulder its way past the perils of Britney, Lindsay and Paris and onto their TV screens. I suspect that most Canadians want to give Manley’s recommendations a fair trial so I don’t think Afghanistan is a big vote getter or loser, for either side.

 

[ModlrMike]

Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez complained that Mr. Harper misrepresented the Liberal proposal to change the mission by ending the "combat" role as support for extending the existing one.

This would be the same Pablo Rodriguez who misrepresented the concept of ethics when he colluded with the CBC?

Now that the crime bill is off the table, it’s not clear to me that the Liberals have any real “ballot question” issue except the budget. While I’m fairly sure that a majority of Canadians are opposed, without any particular reason, with principle, to the Afghanistan mission, I’m equally sure that they are not so opposed as to want to fight an election over it. Canadians, are, by and large, confused; they want to be the mythical ’peaceable kingdom’ armed only with baby-blue beret toting ‘peacekeepers’ but they also want to ‘do something’ about the latest outrage that manages to shoulder its way past the perils of Britney, Lindsay and Paris and onto their TV screens. I suspect that most Canadians want to give Manley’s recommendations a fair trial so I don’t think Afghanistan is a big vote getter or loser, for either side.

I'm sure your right, however I think that the footage of the Liberals abstaining and walking out of the house is going to play very well for the Conservatives, regardless of how the Liberals spin it. I wager the next battle with see the Conservatives use Dion's leadership, or lack thereof, as their issue, and the Liberals use fear and the "hidden agenda" argument as theirs.

 

[geo]

Since when is Mr Rodriguez an MP of any stripe? 

BTW - HE Would be NDP if anything

 

[Reccesoldier]

Seems to me that the amount I'm hearing/reading about the Liberals/Dion being either ready to fight an election or conversely some Liberals/individuals calling on Dion not to cause an election that this issue, and all the rest, are triggers looking to be pulled.

It has little to do with any "cause" and is more dependant on partisan politics and possibility of successful election.  Case in point Bob Rae is urging Dion not to trigger an election, this "news" comes concurrently with a poll placing the Torries at 37% and the libs at 32% nationally.

Election


Poll

Oh, just to be less than partisan myself, I have no doubt that the Conservatives would orchestrate their fall if it were in their interest as well.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is a report, reproduced under the fair dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail that says to me that M. Stéphane Dion is either the most duplicitous, deceitful politician to come down the road since Jean Chrétien or he is, simply, a simpleton:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080215.wletter0215/BNStory/National/home

Dion urges Harper to accept Liberal position on Afghanistan

The Canadian Press

February 15, 2008 at 11:06 AM EST

OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has written the Prime Minister appealing to him to bend to the Liberal position on Afghanistan.

In an open letter today, Mr. Dion tells Stephen Harper that he agrees with the government assertion that Canada “cannot abandon the people of Afghanistan.”

He says much remains to be done to ensure that stability and governance institutions are in place so Afghans can resolve their own differences.

But he adds that Canada's mission has to change.

He tells Mr. Harper that Ottawa cannot continue to extend the same mission indefinitely, and urges him to consider a Liberal amendment to a Conservative motion aiming to prolong the mission.

He says the amendment would bring clarity to Canada's goals in Afghanistan by placing a greater emphasis on diplomatic efforts, and striking a better balance between military operations and reconstruction and development efforts.

Government House leader Peter Van Loan announced Thursday that debate on the government motion will begin Feb. 25. The subsequent vote will be a matter of confidence that could bring down the minority Tory government.

Mr. Dion says the Liberal amendment is guided by three principles:

— NATO must bring new troops into Kandahar by next February so Canadian soldiers can shift the bulk of their efforts toward protecting reconstruction and training.

— The mission must have a clear end date of February 2011, not a further review date that he says will “lead us down the path of a never-ending mission.”

— The mission must be about more than the military and efforts must be balanced between defence, diplomacy and development.

“Liberals also believe that clarity, honesty and transparency are essential to the success of the mission,” Mr. Dion writes.

“To this end, we believe . . . that the government should provide the public with franker and much more frequent reporting on events in Afghanistan.”

The military announced Thursday it would hold weekly media briefings on Afghanistan, but cautioned that strict adherence to the principles of operational security would be maintained.

How can anyone with the brains the gods gave to green peppers square the circle of “[Canada] cannot abandon the people of Afghanistan” with “Canada's mission has to change”?  Only a blinkered fool could argue that M. Dion wants to do the former.

I urge Prime Minister Harper to amend M. Dion’s amendment to ensure that Canada does not abandon the people of Afghanistan – that means “security” must be inserted as one of the main objectives of the mission and the rubbish about a 2011 withdrawal date must be excised.

M. Dion is either a charlatan or a fool, no other option presents itself.
 

 

[MarkOttawa]

Three more worth reading:

Dion himself:

Let's define values and goals for the mission that all Canadians can respect
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080215.wcodion15/BNStory/specialComment/home

Globe editorial:

Denis Coderre's version
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080215.weliberals/BNStory/specialComment/home

...
The only major difference of opinion with the government seemed to be a Liberal insistence that the mission end in 2011. But by the next day, this united front had already crumbled. While Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez suggested that the party had not been clear enough in communicating its position and that it remained at odds with the Tories, his caucus mate Denis Coderre went further, freelancing policy positions that were nowhere to be found in the Liberal amendment. Most significant among an array of baffling musings was Mr. Coderre's response when asked whether the Canadian battle group would remain in Kandahar under the Liberal plan. "No. Not in my book."

Mr. Coderre's book might not have been quite as relevant if he were a junior MP like Mr. Rodriguez. Perhaps it is too much to expect complete unity on such a divisive issue. But Mr. Coderre is the Liberals' defence critic. Yet on the most important matter pertaining to the military, he appears to be contradicting his leader and making it up as he goes along...

National Post editorial:

The Liberals' many Afghan policies
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=309122

...
Feeling dizzy yet?..

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Reccesoldier]

Codierre will has said just about anything to be in the spotlight.  The guy would talk to a security camera if he thought the guards were watching.

 

[RangerRay]

Mein Gott in Himmel!  I can't make sense of those clowns!  (The Liberals)  They have a new position every day!

:

 

[Edward Campbell]

Well, Dion is 'leading' them.

 

[a_majoor]

What makes me want to crack their heads together like coconuts is we are ALREADY doing the mission they are saying we need to do: the KPRT is busy with development and reconstruction work, while the OMLT is busy training the ANA. You can find the KPRT website with minimal google-fu, while the continuing growth of the ANA (five battalions by the end of this tour in Kandahar province, more than twice the number of extra NATO troops requested in the Manley report).

None of this is possible without the field force being able to clear the path, so to speak, and the Taliban will fight viciously to burn schools, mine roads, poision wells and kill the women who have received micro-loans and children who go to school regardless of the posture the ISAF and ANA forces take.

No politician even has to go to Afghanistan to find this out, NDHQ is a short bike ride from Parliament Hill (or you can strap on your orange backpack and walk, if you are so inclined), full briefings and question and answer periods are probably sitting spooled up in every office and conference room in the building for just such an eventuality. Lots of soldiers who have done the tour live in and around Ottawa, and Petawawa is a short drive down the road if you want to talk to more people and get a wider view.

As for the long term, the key moment will be ten years from now as the six million children going to school today reach graduation and are ready to become the skilled and educated work force needed to organize, build and maintain the institutions and infrastructure of a modern State. We may not need to have a military presence in Afghanistan by then (except perhaps in an advisory role), but we pledged ourselves as a nation to help the people of Afghanistan, and should stand with them until (and especially on) graduation day.

 

[ModlrMike]

As for the long term, the key moment will be ten years from now as the six million children going to school today reach graduation and are ready to become the skilled and educated work force needed to organize, build and maintain the institutions and infrastructure of a modern State. We may not need to have a military presence in Afghanistan by then (except perhaps in an advisory role), but we pledged ourselves as a nation to help the people of Afghanistan, and should stand with them until (and especially on) graduation day.

Exactly. The concept of instant results in an anathema to the Afghan. In addition to the "insh allah" approach to life, the Afghans generally take the long view and wait until they see who is the real victor before they decide who to support. Anyone who's spent time in the country will tell you that nothing happens with any degree of speed in Afghanistan.

Our politicians, fellow citizens, and the media need to realize that in the real world there is no such thing as instant gratification. One can't rehabilitate and rebuild a country that has been at war for thirty years over the span of a couple of six month tours.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a report on the new Tory motion:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080221.wafghanmission0221/BNStory/Afghanistan/home

New Afghan motion sets 2011 as mission end date

CAMPBELL CLARK

Globe and Mail Update
February 21, 2008 at 11:49 AM EST

The Conservative minority government unveiled a new motion Thursday on extending the mission in Afghanistan in a bid to close a compromise deal with the opposition Liberals that would allow Canadian soldiers to stay another two years.

The new motion sets out July 2011 as the end date for the mission in Kandahar, with all troops out of the country by December. The Liberals had asked for the mission to end in February, with a pullout in July.

The motion also adopts Liberal language in terms of the mission being about training and providing security for reconstruction.

The motion refers to the need for 1,000 more troops from NATO allies, a key recommendation of the Manley report, although the Liberals had asked for a "sufficient" number and contested whether or not 1,000 would be enough.

The motion does not adopt the Liberal language on detainees, which would require continued suspension of transfers. Instead it commits to "meeting the highest NATO and international standards."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper outlined the new proposal in a speech Thursday to the Conference of Defence Associations in Ottawa. The government has set two days for debate on Afghanistan starting Monday, and the motion must be issued by Thursday.

Mr. Harper also told the conference his government will raise the "automatic" annual increases in the defence budget from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent, starting in the 2011-12 fiscal year, to "thoroughly reverse the so-called rusting-out of the Canadian Forces."

A vote on Afghanistan is not expected until next month – although it would be delayed if the government is defeated on the budget to be tabled next week.

Canada's continued presence in the dangerous mission in southern Afghanistan will turn on a parliamentary vote.

The Liberals, the only opposition party not demanding the mission end completely next year, have called for a change in the mission away from combat and toward security and training.

Setting a clear end date in 2011 is key to winning Liberal support for extending the mission past February, 2009 – and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has accused Mr. Harper of being unwilling to commit to such a firm exit date.

The government presented its first motion on extending the Afghan mission less than two weeks ago, in which it called for a review of the mission in 2011 – a phrase that some said could lead to further extension, rather than bringing the troops home.

They said the motion could be a matter of confidence when it is voted on next month, which could trigger an election.

However, Mr. Dion, seeking to keep his caucus of MPs united and avoid fighting an election campaign on the Afghan war, offered a compromise that would see an extended mission given a new mandate after 2009 – but he conceded that the generals, not politicians, would decided what fighting is necessary.

The Liberals have also demanded a series of other concessions, including regular parliamentary reports on the progress of the mission, a NATO agreement on the treatment of prisoners, and a broadening of aid and reconstruction efforts.

The Conservatives have said that they will only extend the mission if NATO provides 1,000 troops as reinforcements, and help in obtaining helicopters and aerial drones, as recommended by a panel headed by former Liberal minister John Manley.

But the Liberals say more troops might be needed – as replacements in the heavy combat role, rather than reinforcements.

With a report from Brian Laghi

If this report is accurate then Prime Minister Harper has caved unless he inserted specific language making security a stated part of the mission. He is also sentencing his government or the next government, anyway, to a death by a thousand cuts scenario because:

• The Afghanistan Compact will surely be renewed, in some form, and security will be part of the deal; and

• We (the West, ISAF, NATO, Canada, etc) will most likely not be ready and able to declare victory and come home; but

• The loony left will be all over this, again, like a mortarman with the last donut, demanding: “Troops OUT, Now!” 

 

[The Bread Guy]

From the PMO via e-mail, a tiny bit more detail....

PRIME MINISTER HARPER UNVEILS REVISED MOTION ON THE FUTURE OF CANADA’S MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN

February 21, 2008
Ottawa, Ontario

In a speech to the Conference of Defence Associations today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper unveiled details of the Government’s revised motion on the future of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan.

Prime Minister Harper noted that the revised motion represents an effort to achieve a bi-partisan consensus in the House on the future of the mission. It builds on the original Government motion derived from the recommendations of the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan by incorporating large elements of a motion proposed by the Liberal party. “This motion acknowledges what is required for Canada’s mission to succeed in Afghanistan,” said the Prime Minister.

”I am pleased that there is some fundamental common ground between the Government and the Official Opposition, particularly agreement that the mission should continue until 2011 and that operational decisions should be left to Canadian commanders on the ground in Afghanistan.”

The details of the revised motion were part of a speech outlining the role Canada and its military should play in the global security landscape. Highlighting the Government’s commitment to rebuilding the military and Canada’s long-standing tradition as a reliable partner and ally in the quest for global security, the Prime Minister announced that the Government has decided to set aside stable and predictable funding for this plan by increasing the automatic annual increase in defence spending from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent, beginning in 2011-12. This increase will be reflected in the fiscal framework.

This funding, together with new and upgraded equipment, will improve the general effectiveness and safety of Canada’s troops.

“The successful pursuit of all of Canada’s interests around the world – trade, investment, diplomatic and humanitarian – ultimately depends on security,” said Prime Minister Harper. “That’s why we need to build a first-class modern military and keep it that way.”



- edited to add link to statement (if you can get it to open up properly because of "stuck", non-Common Look & Feel graphics) -

 

[Edward Campbell]

The 'logic' escapes me. If a precipitous withdrawal is unacceptable in 2009 why is it OK in 2011?

 

[GAP]

I think Harper is being too clever by half....by seeming to gracefully accept the demand for withdrawl of the troops by 2011 from the liberals in order to gain a concensus on "finishing the job", he is actually getting rid of a real headache.

Afghanistan seems to bog down his agenda with a multitude of crisis. It has, in part, been a minor factor in him not being in majority area. Getting rid of it and getting the CF into something "blue helmeted" has more appeal.

It's all about his search for a majority.

 

[Greymatters]

The 'logic' escapes me. If a precipitous withdrawal is unacceptable in 2009 why is it OK in 2011?

Gives them another two years in which they can try to convince the country to continue with the mission?

 

[tomahawk6]

There is the hope that by 2011 the ANA wont need as many foreign troops and they should be able to handle the heavy lifting.

 

[Panzer Grenadier]

There is the hope that by 2011 the ANA wont need as many foreign troops and they should be able to handle the heavy lifting.

I personally believe the date to be around 2015 before the ANA can be in the position to do the heavy lifting; provided they have the infrastructure and support systems in place to do it.

 

[Reccesoldier]

It's all about his search for a majority.

In return he, just like every other politician is willing to sacrifice principal for politics, the right course for the safe course and any real victory for a momentary one. 

Mark me down as one of the Scorched Earth Types.

Death of a Thousand cuts Edward?  Not just for the government but for our society as well.