Canada, U.S. differ on how army best secures Afghanistan

[McG]

Canada, U.S. differ on how army best secures Afghanistan
Canadians leave rebuilding to pros
Terry Pedwell
The Canadian Press
Friday, August 12, 2005

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - As Canada road tests its plan to bring order to Afghanistan's dangerous Kandahar province, major differences are emerging between the Canadian approach to the region and how the United States has tried to rebuild to the volatile district.

At the same time, some non-government aid groups question Canada's so-called 3-D approach of defence, diplomacy and development in Kandahar. The groups say the plan is misguided and think efforts should be concentrated on development projects, with less emphasis on security.

"We urge that all assistance to Afghanistan be realigned behind country-owned priorities for growth and poverty reduction, and not driven by externally focused security priorities," Save the Children Alliance has said.

Canada has established a provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar, elements of which aren't yet in place. It consists of roughly 250 soldiers who are currently on the ground.

The team is also comprised of RCMP officers and personnel from the Foreign Affairs Department and the Canadian International Development Agency, or CIDA, none of whom are expected to arrive in Afghanistan until early September.

For now, the military element is focusing on providing security in Kandahar for national elections scheduled for Sept. 18. It won't be until after that date that Canada will be able to begin the reconstruction phase of the mission.

On the security side, Canadian military brass have warned that there could be casualties, and that there is an increased threat of attacks by the Taliban militia and other opponents of coalition forces in the region. Even before his soldiers were deployed, Canada's chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, said he expected some might be killed.

However, the commander of the U.S. team that's been active in the area for two years says he doesn't see it that way.

"I don't sense, personally, being out on missions, that there's that much of an increase in a threat," said Lt.-Col. Robbie Ball.

Two countries, two approaches

As Afghanistan moves closer to elections, however, the threat level is increasing, says Col. Steve Bowes, commander of Canada's provincial reconstruction team, or PRT.

"There have been some examples of drive-by shootings where election figures ... have been targeted," said Bowes. "And I think we're likely to see an acceleration of that as we get to the election."

Meanwhile, the Canadians see differences in how Ottawa and Washington approach aid projects in Afghanistan.

The U.S. military is more hands-on, picking projects to finance, and then obtaining funding from agencies, including USAID, the American government's foreign aid branch. It sends a civil affairs team to identify projects that, first and foremost, will boost security.

Canada, on the other hand, draws a bureaucratic line between what the military does -- providing security -- and what aid agencies are expected to accomplish. Canada's international development agency will ultimately decide which projects receive funding.

That suits the military just fine, Bowes said.

"I'm entirely comfortable with our approach to doing business," he said. "As a military officer, I have developed expertise over the years in certain areas. I'm not an expert in providing humanitarian assistance."

The Canadian Forces uses its civil-military co-operation unit, CIMIC, to help co-ordinate aid projects that are operated by local groups or international aid organizations.

"Our choice is to let the experts take the lead," said Bowes. "Security and stability will lead to development, job growth and improved living conditions for Afghanistan's poor. When the elections are successful, we will then set the catalyst for other organizations to initiate their programs."

 

[Sh0rtbUs]

Canada, on the other hand, draws a bureaucratic line between what the military does -- providing security -- and what aid agencies are expected to accomplish. Canada's international development agency will ultimately decide which projects receive funding.

Agreed, let the soldiers be soldiers, and the Aid Agencies be Aid Agencies. Simple and sweet, so long as that "bureaucratic line" isn't misconstrued, and is clearly defined and managed.

 

[SpruceTree]

I was recently at a panel discussion on exaclty this sort of thing (A CF major and several aid agency reps) - defining the relationship between aid agencies and the military. A couple points stood out.
First, in a place like Afghanistan, the military is actively engaged as a belligerant against part of the population. Aid agencies seen to be openly working with the military might be construed as one  with the military and attacked. Often the agency's protection is its perceived neutrality, CIDA or USAID notwithstanding.
Second, in the case of Iraq, one of the agency reps mentioned that when the US was doing its thing in Falluja, the USMC contacted the aid NGOs and expected them to go in and rebuild/deliver aid to the city after it was "pacified"(the USMC used this word according to the rep) - the military had factored the agencies into their plans and expected them to shoulder the burden of redeveloping the city under US protection. This would have sacrificed their neutrality and made them resistance targets per my previous point. The NGOs apparently bristled at this.
I study international development and would appreciate any commentary or insight others would have...

 

[Whiskey_Dan]

In these cases, isn't a Westener just a westener all the same? I mean, these aid NGO's are going to be attacked at the will of insurgents wether or not they have armed protection, right? It doesn't take much to get past a couple of troops and set off an IED.
I don't know for sure or not though, but these terrorists seem to be killing anyone they feel like, this war seems to have no such thing as neutrality.

 

[Armymedic]

I see someone in Ottawa speaking on this point:

The U.S. military is more hands-on, picking projects to finance, and then obtaining funding from agencies, including USAID, the American government's foreign aid branch. It sends a civil affairs team to identify projects that, first and foremost, will boost security.

Canada, on the other hand, draws a bureaucratic line between what the military does -- providing security -- and what aid agencies are expected to accomplish. Canada's international development agency will ultimately decide which projects receive funding.

Saying "Our way is better because the US military machine doesn't.blah...blah...blah...and our way is better because its the way we Canadians do it."

the US way is CIMIC (or atleast what I understand it to be), ours is letting another Gov't organization screw up on thier own.

 

[SpruceTree]

Whiskey_Dan,
Not all insurgents are terrorists and vice versa. There are many different guises of non-uniformed combatant. In Iraq for example there are more than a few groups with varying agendas. Some target occupiers, some target anyone they don't like - all have some political goal usually aligning with kicking out the foreign solidiers,  destroying domestic rivals, or furthing some religious cause.  It is irresponsible to assume they all want the same thing and will use the same means to get there. If that were the case there would only be one group to fight.
Some resistance type groups allow civilian, non-government organisations come in and fix the local well or provide some medicine, but would draw line at a company of soldiers. The Red Cross/Crescent, MSF, and others get access to all kinds of places you couldn't put military unit without a fight. That being said, in some situations the soldiers can provide security so the aid groups can operate. There is no standard format. As well, all aid/development agencies do risk assessments, and no conflict area is completely safe for them but they recognise this as part of the job.

There is also a difference between government aid org's (CIDA, USAID etc) and NGOs. Gov't agencies are ultimately tools of gov't policy and will only go and do what they are told. In this sense there is a political agenda behind their operations. They will fund only approved NGOs that fit/help their political mandate. I volunteer locally for an NGO sponsoring and supporting refugees that recently lost CIDA funding because the gov't change policy.  Non-gov't organisations  are often international in staffing and so are not constrained by specific gov't policies. Many are also small and not constrained by large bureaucratic structures and careerist civil servants like their nationalised cousins.

I should also add that there are now thousands of NGOs of vastly varying quality and purpose. Some are very legitimate and very good at what they do, whereas others are essentially fronts for anything from religious/political ideologies to organised crime.

Hope that helped. edit: to remove really sad grammatical error.

 

[SpruceTree]

Armymedic,
Maj. ____ addressed CIMIC at the talk I mentioned. CIMIC's job is that of facilitator for the CF's tasks.

 

[tomahawk6]

The US has a good civil affairs program with money available for projects without the red tape. The bottom line is that we are both able to help the afghan people. Our ways may be different, but we have been doing this since 2002.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2004/n12162004_2004121604.html

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=7589

 

[SpruceTree]

tomahawk6,
yeah, the military has definite advantages in the red-tape dept over other gov't groups.