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

[a_majoor]

  Maybe it is time that we should be allowed to communicate publicly on this subject, and do what most soldier can do best call a spade a spade. I for one will ask the minister from my home email address that we as the soldiers of this country be allowed to speak about this mission and how we feel.
  Tell the people the truth about UN missions and how much of a load of crap they are. Along with saying the truth about how much of a bunch of true hypocrites the Liberals are.
  Yes we are supposed to be apolitical but I for one am tired of hearing how we, as the soldiers of this country are so supported by those bunch of lying crooks.

You ARE allowed to speak, but make sure you clear it through your CoC, and ensure your head is screwed on very tight, since straying out of your lane can cause all kinds of problems and there are some "journalists" who would like nothing better than for you to put your foot in your mouth (and they will work hard to get you into that position).

Facts, figures and personal observation are your best weapons in this kind of engagement.

 

[Brockvegas]

First of all, let me say that I in no way pretend to be an expert on politics, or Afghanistan. So if I wander outside my lane, feel free to nudge me back in the right direction.

Canada, especially when it comes to our military, has spent the better part of a century building the reputation of being the military equivalent of a protective "big brother". We have always thrived on helping out the "underdogs" of the world, defending those who cannot defend themselves, and in doing so have made a name for ourselves as one of, if not THE, worlds greatest Peacekeepers.

I find it both saddening and sickening that after all this time, our government would hold out a hand to someone who needs our help, and just as they are starting to reach up to take that hand, Mr. Harper is going to pull that hand away and turn his back on them.

I have both family and friends fighting in Afghanistan. I have spoken with them about how Afghan civilians feel about our soldiers being in their country. In Kandahar, a province that the media wants us to believe has a large number of people who do not want us there, I've been told that nearly every person welcomes the Canadians, especially the children.

So, to Mr. Harper I say this: Forget concensus in Parliament, and do what you know is right. If you turn your back on the people of Afghanistan now, you will PERMANENTLY damage a worldwide reputation that has taken this country generations to build. And don't forget that the people who welcome us over there now, will remember what you do too.

 

[MarkOttawa]

MND stand firm (but he really is a terrible political liability):
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070628.woconnor28/BNStory/National/home

A defiant Gordon O'Connor said yesterday [June 27] he has no intention of quitting as Defence Minister, and warned his critics not to assume he is about to turfed from the portfolio in a widely expected cabinet shuffle.

"I can assure you of one thing: I'm not retiring and I'm not resigning," Mr. O'Connor told reporters at a military conference in Kingston. "And if you want to run a pool, go ahead. You're going to lose."

The minister told the conference he expects to deliver the government's long-awaited policy paper, which will include elements of the government's current policy in support of the Afghanistan mission, by the end of the summer...

Mr. O'Connor came to the defence of the Afghan mission in his speech yesterday to the conference on "stability operations," insisting the Afghan army was making such great strides that he could foresee the day when it could take over much [emphasis added] of the combat mission now being handled by Canada's 2,500 troops based in Kandahar.

Yet at the same time, Mr. O'Connor was blunt in his assessment of the long-term prospects for Afghanistan, using the kind of unsubtle language that has got him into political hot water before. "Afghanistan has always been a land of instability," he said in response to a conference questioner, adding later, that "I think the area is always going to be unstable."

He said the security situation along the border with Pakistan remains difficult to police, in part because there are millions of ethnic Pashtuns in both countries. "There is a steady stream of insurgents coming across the border," he said.

Later, he tried to temper those comments when asked about them by reporters. "What I'm saying is that Afghanistan is in an unstable region and there will always be challenges to Afghanistan. Our job and NATO's job is to try and create a state that is stable enough to handle its own affairs [emphasis added] so it can govern efficiently."..

I do not understand why ministers generally do not hammer home much more forcefully the real "exit strategy" in the bolded bits. Certainly the media do not seem to understand or analyze it.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Boxkicker]

I find it both saddening and sickening that after all this time, our government would hold out a hand to someone who needs our help, and just as they are starting to reach up to take that hand, Mr. Harper is going to pull that hand away and turn his back on them.

 Blame Stepahne Dion or Jack Layton. Yeah true the PM is playing to the polls right now, but he has said he wants to be a government that listens to the people to.

 

[armyvern]

 Blame Stepahne Dion or Jack Layton. Yeah true the PM is playing to the polls right now, but he has said he wants to be a government that listens to the people to.

Playing the polls isn't leading, and I missed the part where Dion and Layton duct-taped over the ruling parties mouths.

Nobody on this thread has advocated that the public NOT be given a chance to voice their desire and/or lack of it about mission continuance past 2009.

What they HAVE advocated is that the Canadian public be "LED" in a fully informed manner. Sitting back and saying nothing is not leading, and is most certainly NOT allowing Canadians the opportunity to make an INFORMED decision based upon the actualities of the situation in Afghanistan and our mission there. Quite certainly, you may also find that a properly informed public ... may influence the polls in an upwards direction of support for the mission.

What is so hard for you to grasp about that??

 

[Boxkicker]

You ARE allowed to speak, but make sure you clear it through your CoC, and ensure your head is screwed on very tight, since straying out of your lane can cause all kinds of problems and there are some "journalists" who would like nothing better than for you to put your foot in your mouth (and they will work hard to get you into that position).

Facts, figures and personal observation are your best weapons in this kind of engagement.

 I know we can speak to the media but what I am saying is I keep hearing how the LIBS keep saying that "WE SUPPORT OUR SOLDIERS", and we all know that is a crock of S**T. I would like to be able to express some of my personal feelings on that subject.
You know thing like know MR Dion I have never felt any support from you Liberals, and please do us a favor no more UN missions in which we watch 3rd world armies sell off there kit to the belligerents.  Also please dont call me a peacekeeper I am a soldier, that term of peacekeeper is insulting. If I am on a peacekeeping mission then so be it, but otherwise I am a soldier.
 

 

[Boxkicker]

Playing the polls isn't leading.

You are so very correct on this point.

 

[Brockvegas]

"What they HAVE advocated is that the Canadian public be "LED" in a fully informed manner. Sitting back and saying nothing is not leading, and is most certainly NOT allowing Canadians the opportunity to make an INFORMED decision based upon the actualities of the situation in Afghanistan and our mission there. Quite certainly, you may also find that a properly informed public ... may influence the polls in an upwards direction of support for the mission."

100% Agree with you on that. Unfortunately, I don't believe that Canadians, at this time, ARE getting all the information they need to make an informed decision.

 

[armyvern]

100% Agree with you on that. Unfortunately, I don't believe that Canadians, at this time, ARE getting all the information they need to make an informed decision.

And that is the whole point of the Ruxted article located here regarding Canada's current mission in Afghanistan and Her foreign policy.

The sound of silence is deafening.

 

[Brockvegas]

And that is the whole point of the Ruxted article located here regarding Canada's current mission in Afghanistan and Her foreign policy.

The sound of silence is deafening.

Yeah, that's what got me all fired up in the first place.(Well, today anyways) It really frustrates the hell out of me when people start spouting off things they've heard in the news, and saying that's why they don't support the mission, not even realizing that they haven't the foggiest what's going on over there.

 

[observor 69]

And that is the whole point of the Ruxted article located here regarding Canada's current mission in Afghanistan and Her foreign policy.

The sound of silence is deafening.

+ 1 Vern

 

[observor 69]

Gwynne Dyer and  The Mess They Made :
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=e8ecfd91-41c1-47fc-93a1-dec77392dbaa

All things considered, (the current NATO action) will have much less impact than the Russian intervention. In fact, what's happening now is really a coda to that, of what has been in progress for 30 years. Canada's participation is not small, providing one-seventh of the total combat forces. It's really Canadians, Americans, Brits and the Dutch, with the others hiding."

And what of the February 2009 timetable for withdrawal of combat troops, which Stephen Harper may have reluctantly signed onto of late? "If I was PM, I'd call a cabinet meeting tomorrow, call (General) Rick Hillier at noon and begin sending the forces home next week."

"There is just no point in sacrificing more lives because we are not going to make a difference. We are not going to change that country. Sorry, no offence intended, but they are basically a nation of hicks. It will be up to them, and there are actually some hopeful signs. The Taliban is widely regarded as a monolithic force, but it isn't. It's a creation of the (Pakistani secret police) ISI. And it's worth remembering that it wasn't the Taliban who attacked the West, but al-Qaida. Any Afghanistan that follows will have to include the Pashtun majority this time, no question. It will be messy. But we cannot do this for them."

In fact, Dyer's essential message in the book, also applied to Iraq, is that the West should essentially butt out of the Middle East, period. As soon as possible. In his reading, the only strategic interest the West really has there is oil. As long as that supply continues along, our interventions can only make matters worse. True, there will be carnage, and it's entirely possible that several regimes will pass to Islamist hands. With the fall of Marxism and nothing happening on the liberal democracy front, the clerics and their militias are virtually the only opposition available in a myriad of regional repressive jurisdictions.

As Dyer points out, the current struggle in Iraq ("let's just call it a civil war until something worse comes along") is not merely between Sunni and Shia (and secular Kurds), but between radical Islamist Sunni and radical Islamist Shia.

"The crusade should be cancelled for a lack of interest. This is a waste of lives. We must leave them alone, and in that I include the Israelis, who have de facto now unwittingly accepted a one-state solution along with the Palestinians, who have chosen that awful route."

Much of the coming Middle East "will not be a pretty place," Dyer predicts. "It will a bad idea to be a woman or a so-called intellectual. But the statism in Arab politics we've known is at an end."

As to our capacity in the West to provide a fix, Dyer points to this week's naming of Tony Blair as Middle East super-envoy. "Imagine choosing one of the principal architects of this mess to straighten it out. Incredible."

Dyer ends his introduction with a trademarked blunt closer. "It's none of our business," he writes.

"In the long run, (Western non-involvement) will certainly be better for the peoples of the region than perpetual foreign tutelage. And it will not harm the West's interests, so long as the oil continues to flow. Apart from that, the entire region is of little economic or strategic importantance to the rest of the world. Lie back, and try to enjoy the ride."

Some kinda fun.

akellogg@thejournal.canwest.com

 

[vonGarvin]

Gwynne Dyer and his aweful isolationism.  Look how well that worked out for us on 9/11, for the USS Cole, for the embassies in Africa..


the list goes on

 

[Edward Campbell]

Strategically Gwynne Dyer is spot on when he says: "... the West should essentially butt out of the Middle East, period. As soon as possible ... the only strategic interest the West really has there is oil. As long as that supply continues along, our interventions can only make matters worse. True, there will be carnage, and it's entirely possible that several regimes will pass to Islamist hands. With the fall of Marxism and nothing happening on the liberal democracy front, the clerics and their militias are virtually the only opposition available in a myriad of regional repressive jurisdictions."

We have no interests, vital or otherwise, other than resources in most of the world.  None, I would suggest (again, except resources) anywhere in Africa, the Middle East or West and Central Asia.  Some of our friends and competitors - India, China, Indonesia - do have vital interests in West and Central Asia, and may have a few (again, resources excepted) in the Middle East and Africa, too.

What about Iran's nuclear weapons and Israel's survival?  Well, Israel sure has a vital interest in both but it's not clear to me that Canada has a strategic vital interest there.  We, many (most? just a few?) of us, anyway, may have an emotional, historical or just plain human interest in preserving a small liberal democracy or a 'people' with some claim on our pity but that's not the same a strategic interest.  It will be a great shame if (more likely when) Israel finally cannot manage to win every war – as it must if it is to survive.  It will be a human tragedy and we ought to be ready, willing and able to accept a flood of  sophisticated, highly ‘cultured’ refugees from Israel – to our mutual benefit.

What about America's role as the world's policeman?  Why bother in Barnett's "gap"?  Well, Barnett, of course, offers cogent reasons for the US to lead the world in an effort to bring the "gap" nations into the "functioning core" and he advocates the right ways, too: private investment, private enterprise and so on but, and this is a huge BUT none of things will work until the people, themselves, in the 'gap' nations decide, for themselves, in their own ways to make their societies ready and able to accept the solutions Barnett proposes.  We cannot do that for them and there is no ‘quick fix,’ either.  It is the work of generations – probably, as Dyer suggests, bloody, violent work.

Some of our friends and competitors may decide that their interests, real or imagined, require them to intervene or remain engaged in the “gap” regions; some of our friends may invite or otherwise encourage us to join or remain with them.  We do have a vital interest in keeping on the good side of our friends and we might well decide that aid to and interference in the “gap,” useless though either will be, is required to satisfy that vital interest.

 

[Brockvegas]

E.R. Campbell,

Sir, while I do bow to your years of experience, and as a general rule, I do not debate the word of a veteran, I am slightly troubled by your post.

While I agree with the FACTS of your statement, it came across (to me anyway) like you don't believe we should become involved in any conflict unless we have a "Strategic vital interest" in the region.

Please clarify for me if that was the opinion you were trying to purvey. If I misread, or am incorrect in my understanding I do apologize.

 

[McG]

Canada, especially when it comes to our military, has spent the better part of a century building the reputation of being the military equivalent of a protective "big brother". We have always thrived on helping out the "underdogs" of the world, defending those who cannot defend themselves, and in doing so have made a name for ourselves as one of, if not THE, worlds greatest Peacekeepers.

That being the case, maybe we should listen to Ruxted on the hypocracy of abandoning Kandahar while still claiming to be peacekeepers.  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63566.0.html

 

[Edward Campbell]

E.R. Campbell,

Sir, while I do bow to your years of experience, and as a general rule, I do not debate the word of a veteran, I am slightly troubled by your post.

While I agree with the FACTS of your statement, it came across (to me anyway) like you don't believe we should become involved in any conflict unless we have a "Strategic vital interest" in the region.

Please clarify for me if that was the opinion you were trying to purvey. If I misread, or am incorrect in my understanding I do apologize.

Hmmm …

Why should we, the people of Canada, acting through our elected government send our young men and women off to fight and die?

There are some obvious ‘good’ reasons: someone attacks us, for example – and there are many who would argue that al Qaeda did just that and, since it had its base in Afghanistan, our mission in Afghanistan (starting in Kandahar in early 2002) is our self defence response and we ought not to stop fighting in Afghanistan until we are sure the Taliban and al Qaeda’s other allies in that region are defeated.

We do have vital interests – all over the world.  Canada is on the verge of being a ‘creditor nation’.  That means we own a good chunk of the world – soon, more than the rest of the world owns of us.  And I do mean ’we’ because the CPP invests in Canadian companies and more and more Canadian companies have extensive and growing global holding.  I don’t want to conjure up shades of the United Fruit Company in Central America but economic interests matter and they may need to be protected.

Those, plus the one I mentioned above – staying ‘allied’ with allies,  are valid reasons to commit troops to operations.

I am opposed to missions which have no sound strategic raison d’être.

But: We are one of the world’s most favoured nations.  Geography, history and our own efforts combined to bless us.  Should we not accept some responsibility to help or protect those who are less fortunate?

How tolerable is it that Haiti is in our ‘neighbourhood’ but remains one of the world’s poorest, least ‘developed’ nations in the world?  We should understand, by now, that sending money, followed by more money and a few do-gooders from NGOs will not, because it cannot, change anything.  If we decide to accept our responsibility in the world then we need to understand that:

1. There are real, practical limits to how much we can do; and 

2. Development takes time - lots of it.

We can, either, decide on the easy but totally ineffectual way and continue to scamper from country to country, dropping dollops of cash and staging political photo ops or we can pick a few place – like Afghanistan, like Haiti -and the commit for the long term, which may be generations.

I don’t think we, as a country, are going to change any time soon.  We, like the other countries in the West, are still going to  do the wrong thing and we’ll do it the wrong way, too.

But, you tell me: should we “get involved in any conflict” even though we have no vital interest at stake.  Should we turn the CF into ‘rent-a-thug’? 

I have no objection to sending soldiers to fight and die if it is in our national interest.  I object to Canadians – leaders and followers alike – failing to understand what out interests are.

----------
P.S. Ideas are neither good nor bad just because they come from a veteran - or any old fart, for that matter.  If I'm wrong say so and tell me why - don't excuse my errors because I'm old.

 

[observor 69]

IMHO Mr.Campbell you are speaking the pragmatic, objective truth.

You're playin' with fire sir. 

 

[Brockvegas]

Mr. Campbell,

QUOTE
"Should we not accept some responsibility to help or protect those who are less fortunate?"
UNQUOTE

Absolutely. If you want to know exactly how I feel about this, please go back to page 37 in this thread and read reply #543.

QUOTE
"But, you tell me: should we “get involved in any conflict” even though we have no vital interest at stake.  Should we turn the CF into ‘rent-a-thug’?"
UNQUOTE

Seeing as this thread pertains to the mission in Afghanistan, and whether or not we should be there, your origional post (once again, in MY opinion) sounded as though you don't think we have a "strategic interest" there.

And no, I don't think we should use the CF as a "rent-a-thug". Unless, of course, that's what you think were using them as right now in Afghanistan.

QUOTE
"P.S. Ideas are neither good nor bad just because they come from a veteran - or any old fart, for that matter.  If I'm wrong say so and tell me why - don't excuse my errors because I'm old."
UNQUOTE

Sir, I was neither pointing out errors, nor excusing them. I was merely seeking clarification, so that I can better understand your point of view.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think we have three vital interests at play in Afghanistan:

1. Self-defence - the (Taliban) Government of Afghanistan provided real support to the 'base' organization (al Qaeda) which attacked us;

2. Staying allied with allies - we are a charter member and a one-time and would-be-again leader of the West.  We were asked to 'step up' and shoulder some of the burden of peacemaking.  We did, as we should have; and

3. Responsibility to Protect.  I believe that some Canadians - not very many, I hasten to add - actually believe in the R2P doctrine which we pushed so hard in the UN throughout the '90s.

Each, in and of itself, is insufficient to justify sending Canadian troops and treasure into battle but any two, taken together might be, when all three are factored in it is an easy choice.

What about e.g. Darfur?

R2P is, certainly, at play but none of the others, (self defence, alliance obligations, economic interests) are operative so I say No! to Darfur.  Ditto Haiti, for now, anyway – but I am prepared to understand that that the current government may want to use it as part of the ‘neighbourhood’ argument and there is a modestly important kith and kin argument in three or four Montreal area electoral ridings.  Those two factors could see us in Haiti, again.  I have heard beer fuelled rumours to the effect that some planners want a two mission profile:

1. Haiti – assigned, primarily, to 5th and 34th brigades; and

2. Afghanistan – assigned to almost everyone else.

It makes just enough political sense to have some basis in fact; there is an overwhelming desire in Ottawa for generals to want to be politicized bureaucrats and bureaucrats to want to be military operations planners.  Everyone always wants to piddle in the other fellow’s pool.

In short: I have trouble imagining, right now, how we might find one vital interest sufficient to justify sending troops into battle – but two or three together are in play, right now, in Afghanistan.

If the government of the day is serious about wanting Canada to play a leadership role (and I’m not convinced that’s very high on the PM's ‘to do’ list) then PM Harper needs to stop governing by poll and point the foreign affairs machine in the right direction.  Now I understand, from the media and the rumour mill that the PM is trying to push the striped pants brigade into line but it’s a slow, arduous process.  Foreign Affairs is only a pale, weak imitation of the powerhouse department it was until the 1970s.  It may be necessary to rebuild the department before it can do much useful.  (The civil service is divided into two very distinct classes.  The upper class was (until circa 1970) found in External Affairs, Finance and, of course, the PCO; the lower classes were in all other departments. (Briefly, in the early ‘40s, CD Howe’s team joined the upper class.)  Now there are only two departments in the upper class: Finance and PCO.)


Edit: I have heard beer fuelled rumours to