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

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Manley to recommend Canada stay on in Afghanistan
Last Updated: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 | 7:28 AM ET

John Manley is set to release his highly anticipated report Tuesday morning on Canada's mission in Afghanistan, in which he is expected to recommend Canada continue its presence in the country beyond the current deadline of February 2009.

The blue-ribbon panel led by the former Liberal cabinet minister is also expected to urge NATO to send more troops and helicopters to Kandahar and put more emphasis on training the Afghan army and police.
It has been widely reported that Manley and the advisory group will not give a specific timeline of how long Canada's mission in the embattled country should last.

The findings won't be binding, but will carry weight in the discussions about Canada's future role in Afghanistan given that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also promised to allow MPs to vote on the issue in Parliament.
The panel has received more than 200 submissions from interested people and organizations, including those from the Liberal party and the Green party, the CBC's Rosemary Barton reported. The NDP and the Bloc Québécois, which have been critical of the panel, didn't submit suggestions, she said.

Speaking in Halifax Monday, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said he expects a "very informed and informative report — one which will be very beneficial to not just the government, but to Parliament and to all Canadians in framing the debate as to how we go forward in Afghanistan."
The Liberals have indicated they would like to see Canada's combat role in the south wind down by the 2009 deadline, with more emphasis placed on the development element of the mission.

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said Monday he isn't against the idea of Canadian soldiers training the Afghan army or helping with development projects. But he said he wants Canada off the front lines where its soldiers have been fighting and dying.

"What we want, it's a mission to help Afghanis to build their country, a mission in the tradition of Canada," Dion said. "The combat mission must end in February 2009, and after that we'll help Afghanistan by other ways."
NDP Leader Jack Layton reiterated his party's call on Monday for a complete Canadian withdrawal.

"I think that it's well known by Canadians that we feel this is the wrong mission, the wrong mission for Canada, that NATO's approach is failing," Layton said. "More and more Canadians have come around to our view.
The advisory panel and Manley, a one-time federal Liberal leadership contender, were appointed by the prime minister last October to consider four options:

Keep training Afghan troops and police to be self-sustaining when Canadian troops withdraw.
Focus on reconstruction in Kandahar with another NATO country taking over security.
Shift Canadian security and reconstruction to another region of Afghanistan.
Withdraw the main body of Canada's troops in February 2009.
The group — which includes former broadcaster Pamela Wallin, Derek Burney, former ambassador to Washington and one-time chief of staff to former prime minister Brian Mulroney, Paul Tellier, former clerk of the privy council and Jake Epp, a former Mulroney cabinet minister — also spent 10 days touring Afghanistan in November.

Harper appointed the panel amid a political debate over what Canada should do when the mandate of its current Afghan commitment runs out in February 2009. The Conservatives are leaning toward a continuation of Canadian troops working in the region, while other parties are demanding that the troops come home.

Seventy-seven Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed since the beginning of Canada's mission in Afghanistan in 2002.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/01/22/afghan-manley.html

 

[CdnArtyWife]

The final report (all 94 pages) can be viewed/downloaded as a pdf at: http://www.independent-panel-independant.ca/pdf/Afghan_Report_web_e.pdf

Happy reading...

CAW

 

[The Bread Guy]

And here's the news release on the Panel web page....

Canada urged to shift focus of its Afghanistan missionIndependent Panel sets out conditions for extending military commitment
News release link - en francais

Jan. 22, 2008, OTTAWA – Canada’s future role in Afghanistan must place greater emphasis on diplomacy and reconstruction and the Canadian military focus must shift gradually from combat to training Afghan national security forces, an expert panel report today recommended to the federal government.

“We are recommending a Canadian commitment to Afghanistan that is neither open-ended nor faint-hearted,” says the report by the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan.

“We owe it to the Afghans, to our allies and to our own future security needs to give this mission every possible chance to succeed,” says John Manley, Chair of the Panel. “What is evident is that the commitment to Afghanistan made by successive Canadian governments has not yet been completed. The ultimate objective is to enable the Afghans to manage their own security.”

The Independent Panel says Canada’s military mission in southern Afghanistan should be extended beyond February 2009, provided two key conditions are met:

That a new battle group is deployed by International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) partners to Kandahar province, enabling Canadian forces to accelerate training of the Afghan National Army; and
That the Government secure by February 2009 at the latest new, medium-lift helicopters and high-performance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).    
If these conditions are not met, the Independent Panel urges the government to notify Afghan and allied governments that Canada intends to transfer responsibility for security in Kandahar.

The Panel also recommends a new diplomatic push by Canada to ensure that the international effort to help Afghans rebuild their country and reconcile their differences is better coordinated and produces measurable results. The report calls on the Prime Minister to personally take charge of this diplomatic effort.  

“The Prime Minister has substantial influence and we urge him to use it, commensurate with Canada’s contributions,” adds Manley. “Specifically, we urge efforts to make the international, civilian and military effort more coherent and more effective. Equally, there is an urgent need to reduce regional tensions and to press for stronger action by the Afghan Government to tackle corruption and deliver basic services to the Afghan people. Canada’s development assistance should be revamped to bolster that objective.”

The Independent Panel also says the government must do a better job of informing Canadians on why Canada is involved in Afghanistan, what are the risks and challenges of being there, and what outcomes can realistically be achieved.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper established the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan in October 2007. It was given the task of advising Parliament on options for the Canadian mission in Afghanistan once its mandate ends in February 2009.

In addition to John Manley, the Panel includes former federal Cabinet Minister Jake Epp, former Clerk of the Privy Council Paul Tellier, former Canadian Ambassador to the United States  Derek Burney, and Pamela Wallin, former Canadian Consul General in New York City.

 

[tomahawk6]

Ah yes, substitute an allied BG so the Canadian BG can train the ANA.Maybe I read it wrong ?

 

[technofixit]

If these conditions are not met, the Independent Panel urges the government to notify Afghan and allied governments that Canada intends to transfer responsibility for security in Kandahar.

Transfer responsibilty to whom?  I don't see any other NATO countries chomping at the bit to take over security in Kandahar.  If we cease combat operations in the Kandahar area, and stick to providing very limited local security, than I think the Taliban are going to have a field day.

 

[CdnArtyWife]

Manley is speaking about the report on CBCnewsworld now.

 

[MarkOttawa]

"The Afghan mission is a noble one".

Here's my selection of major points made (by John Manley unless otherwise noted), with a bit of comment, at the press conference on the Afghanistan panel's report. Mr Manley and the whole panel were clearly passionate about the importance of our mission; they gave a very convincing presentation of their case. What a pity that Mr Manley is not the Liberal leader. The title of this comment is my summary of the panel's message.

*NATO must provide a 1,000-strong battle group to help us at Kandahar (comment: our actual combat forces there are about that number). We need a fighting partner, like the Danes with the Brits and the Aussies with the Dutch. If NATO does not come through by February 2009 the some 2,000 Canadian troops in Afghanistan should be withdrawn. If we withdraw, and NATO does not replace us, the whole international Afghan mission faces failure.

Comment: A strong piece of diplomatic blackmail. Not exactly honourable to my mind, given the stress on the importance of our mission--but perhaps effective negotiating hardball.

*The new US troop commitment, if not temporary as now, could satisfy our requirement

*Prime Minister Harper must take charge of the issue domestically, and take a forceful personal lead with the allies; no Parliamentary vote on the future of the mission should be held until after NATO's early April summit meeting in Bucharest.

The government must do a much better and franker job of explaining the mission and the situation in Afghanistan to the public.

*The security situation in the south is not improving; the government needs to admit this.

*The training of the Afghan National Army is a "great success". The exit strategy is gradually to shift the combat load to them with our troops as backup. But that backup role still involves some combat. So does training since trainers need to go into the field with their ANA units and fight alongside them.

*Derek Burney: It's not only NATO that needs to get its act together but also those doing civilian work. A powerful UN coordinator is required for international aid, reconstruction, governance etc. efforts.

*When Mr Manley became foreign minister "Not a lot of people listened when Canada talked." Now, because of what we have done, they listen to us about Afghanistan.

*Canada can't just retreat from international engagement to North America, under the umbrella of US protection.

*The mission is authorized by the UN and firmly in the tradition of Lester Pearson. It would be nice to have a peacekeeping mission at Kandahar--but "there is no peace to keep."

*As for Darfur: the Sudanese government doesn't want us and such a mission would be a combat one anyway.

Liberal leader Stéphane Dion anwered a few press questions, by chance right after the Manley press conference. He said he wouldn't comment on the report until after he'd read it--and then seemed to say the Liberal position on ending our combat role in 2009 was firm. So why bother reading the report? I'm going to read the whole darned 94-page thing. 

"Rambo Dion"
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/marching-as-to-war.html

Here's the CTV story, with video of the press conference:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080121/manley_panel_080122/20080122?hub=TopStories

Mark
Ottawa

 

[The Bread Guy]

And what happens next?

Statement by the PM Upon the Release of the Report
by the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan
Statement link - francais, 22 Jan 08

Ottawa, Ontario - "On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to thank John Manley, Derek Burney, Pamela Wallin, Paul Tellier and Jake Epp for their hard work in producing this substantive and thoughtful report that contains recommendations regarding Canada's future role in Afghanistan. This report will help inform broader public debate about the future of Canada's role in Afghanistan as Parliamentarians prepare to make this important decision.

"I also want to thank the more than 300 individuals from the development, diplomatic, political, and security sectors, who met with the panel members and shared their knowledge and experience.

"Over the coming days, our government will thoroughly review the recommendations with Cabinet and our Caucus before coming forward with our response."

The Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan was created by the Prime Minister on October 12, 2007. It was asked to advise Canadians and Parliament on options for the mission after the current mandate ends in February, 2009.

The report of the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan can be found on the Panel's website: www.independent-panel-independant.ca or on the Library and Archives Canada website at www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/afghanistan.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Reaction by the Conference of Defence Associations (from an e-mail):

The Conference of Defence Associations (CDA)
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/english-frame.htm
welcomes this very important document. After reviewing the report, the CDA has concluded that it is a sober and even-handed assessment of Canada's role thus far in the Afghan mission, and provides a compelling vision for the future. It presents a set of important recommendations, many in line with the CDA's own proposals made in the past and in its own submission to the panel, that build upon the goodwork already accomplished in Afghanistan...

The report both praises and is critical of several components of Canada's mission in Afghanistan. Its recommendations that Canada continue its good work are also accompanied by specific suggestions for improving Canada's and the international community's efforts in that country. Most notable are:

- Canada should "continue with its responsibility for security in Kandahar beyond February 2009 . . . including its combat role, but with increasing emphasis on training the Afghan National Security Forces expeditiously to take lead responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole" (p. 37). However, the report notes that it is impossible to separate "training" and "combat" roles: ". . . in reality, training and mentoring Afghan forces means sometimes conducting combat operations with them" (p. 30).

- That Canada's role in Afghanistan should give greater emphasis to diplomacy,
reconstruction and governance;

- A greater and more comprehensive political-military strategy and commitment from NATO;

- Avoiding the use of artificial deadlines: "Ending Canada's military contribution in Kandahar is therefore not a matter of setting artificial deadlines in time. It is a matter of making real progress in the context of events on the ground" (p. 32);

- A call for the Prime Minister to take personal charge of the Afghan file, supported by a cabinet-level committee and a single task force directing and coordinating the activities of all departments involved (p. 37), injecting greater political and bureaucratic commitment into the file.

We hope that the Government and its departments will take this report as constructive criticism. We also hope that political leaders, civil society and Canadians in general use the report to inform themselves of the complexity of the mission. Notably, the report views Afghanistan as a test of Canada's commitment to the international community:

"For the first time in many years, we have brought a level of commitment to an international problem that gives us real weight and credibility . . . We like to talk about Canada's role in the world. Well, we have a meaningful one in Afghanistan."
p. 5)

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

Some good, some bad and some WTF.

The good is telling it like it is. We are facing a very hard job and our friends and allies really do need to step up, not just for us and the Afghan people but to demonstrate that NATO is still a viable organization. We have nothing to do with opium eradication, aid delivery by CDIA or the role of the PMO in communicating the mission (although we have all ended up doing some parts of these jobs more or less on our own).

What I found bad about the report is the suggestion we change our emphasis to training the ANSF (Afghan National Security Forces; the ANA and ANP); what do they think we are doing out there? At least they are realistic that the Role of the OMLT or whatever the successor organization is called will still involve combat operations.

The WTF is the suggestion we get 1000 new NATO troops to Kandahar post haste to support us, and we get medium lift helicopters and high performance UAV's within the next year. Based on NATO's response to previous requests for troops, it would be much more probable that we increase the size of the next two or three ROTOs by 1000 Canadian soldiers for a "surge". As for getting helicopters, we have seen that even with single source contracts it takes something like two or more years to get new aircraft. UAV's might be on the edge of possibility, but who will man the UAV flights or batteries or whatever?

Overall, lots of meat to chew on, and I will also be spending time reading the document.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Excellent report. It's very depressing to read the comments on the CTV website though and I should know better by now than to read them. I agree with the "idea" of a Canadian surge but where the heck would we get the troops??  ???

 

[sgf]

what happens to this report if the following conditions are not met

Therefore, Canada’s military mission in Kandahar should be conditionally
extended beyond February 2009—the extension to be expressly contingent on the
deployment of additional troops by one or more ISAF countries to Kandahar
province. This added deployment should consist of a battle group (about 1,000
soldiers) to reinforce ISAF’s “clear, hold and develop” strategy in Kandahar and to
accelerate training of Afghan army and police units

 

[ModlrMike]

The not unexpected response from the Loyal Opposition:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080122/panel_opposition_080122/20080122?hub=TopStories

And from the other two parties: (taken from: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/01/22/afghan-manley.html )

NDP Leader Jack Layton, who has called for a complete and immediate Canadian withdrawal, reacted negatively to the recommendations.

"This report is clearly out of touch with the feelings of a great many Canadians and a careful reading of the report shows that this mission is failing on many, many fronts," Layton told reporters following a meeting with caucus members in Montebello, Que. 

"The NDP continues to believe that a complete change of direction is essential in Afghanistan."

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe also disagreed with extending the mission.

"Canadian and Quebec military have done more than their share. Other countries now must step in and take up the challenge," Duceppe said.

 

[QV]

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe also disagreed with extending the mission.

"Canadian and Quebec military have done more than their share. Other countries now must step in and take up the challenge," Duceppe said.

I wonder what that is supposed to mean?

 

[vonGarvin]

The not unexpected response from the Loyal Opposition:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080122/panel_opposition_080122/20080122?hub=TopStories

And from the other two parties: (taken from: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/01/22/afghan-manley.html )

NDP Leader Jack Layton, who has called for a complete and immediate Canadian withdrawal, reacted negatively to the recommendations.

"This report is clearly out of touch with the feelings of a great many Canadians and a careful reading of the report shows that this mission is failing on many, many fronts," Layton told reporters following a meeting with caucus members in Montebello, Que.   

"The NDP continues to believe that a complete change of direction is essential in Afghanistan."

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe also disagreed with extending the mission.

"Canadian and Quebec military have done more than their share. Other countries now must step in and take up the challenge," Duceppe said.

Hey, Duceppe, you may have been a communist at one point, but provinces don't have militaries, in fact, they are prohibited from raising militaries BY THE CONSTITUTION!
As for Mr. "The Sky is Falling" Layton, I say SHAME!  By what measure is the mission failing?  By what measure is this a combat-centric mission?  I mean, after MEDUSA, there have been combat operations, firefights and the like, but nothing on the scale of the summer of 2006!  I think that the NDP is focussed in the past.  I haven't a clue what the Liberals are talking about, but I just can't let it slide that Mr Duceppe had the outright NERVE to call those proud members of the CANADIAN Armed Forces, who are stationed in Quebec, as members of the QUEBEC military!!!!!


:rage:

 

[tomahawk6]

I guess he means that Canada and French Canadians have done their share and can go home.
No question that the CF has been punching above their weight for sometime now. Despite DoD's comments to the contrary I wouldnt be surprised to see either a Marine MEU or Army brigade in Kandahar province after the 24th MEU completes its 7 month tour. With Kandahar being the second most active province its only natural it seems to me that the NATO forces in that province be reinforced.

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post at The Torch (beyond my comment above):
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/70016/post-664529.html#msg664529

The guts of the Manley panel report
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/guts-of-manley-panel-report.html

...below are some excerpts that strike me as fundamental to the panel's message (the substantive part of the report is just thirty-two pages). The best possible result, for the internal politics of both Canada and NATO, would be if France provided the 1,000 strong battle group to partner with us at Kandahar. With M. Sarkozy as Président de la République...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-wonder-what-m-dion-thinks.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[FascistLibertarian]

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=256093

John Manley was asked Tuesday if his panel's report on Canada's future in Afghanistan was consistent with Liberal tradition.

"Absolutely this is in the Liberal tradition. I think that countries like Canada have an important, meaningful role to play in protecting our values, standing up for the rights of individuals [and for] the human security of people whose government can't protect them -- that's something we as Canadians have talked a lot about.

We're a rich country, we've got to do some of this stuff ... The world isn't a pretty place but I happen to believe that the people who came before me in the Liberal party believed in a strong role for Canada on the international stage and would say there are times when we have to be counted, times when it matters. that's what I think."

+1 John Manley

 

[The Bread Guy]

Gotta love the "two fer" news release from the Tories, dinging BOTH theLiberals and the Green Party!

CONSERVATIVES CALL ON MAY TO RETRACT EXTREMIST REMARKS
It’s also time for Stéphane Dion to terminate the Liberal/Green Party Coalition
News release link - francais

January 22, 2008 - Today, Conservative Member of Parliament, Pierre Poilievre demanded that Stéphane Dion’s candidate in Central Nova, Elizabeth May to apologize for characterizing NATO and Canadian forces as “Christian Crusaders” (Green Party, Press Release, January 22, 2008) and called on Stéphane Dion to terminate his electoral cooperation agreement with a leader so out of the mainstream to smear the reputation of our soldiers, diplomats and aid workers.

“These comments by Stéphane Dion’s candidate in Central Nova not only demonstrate a lack of knowledge about foreign affairs but are grossly insulting to Canadian forces,” said Poilievre.  “Our Canadian forces along with our NATO allies are working together with the support of the democratically elected Afghan government to bring peace and human rights to the people of Afghanistan and these comments continue to demonstrate that Liberal/Green collation is not worth the risk.”

“Ms. May is trying to imply that our troops, diplomats and aid workers are forcibly occupying Afghanistan when in fact they are there at the invitation of the Afghan Government,” said Poilievre.

This is not the first time that Stéphane Dion’s candidate has made radical remarks. The London Free Press reported that Green Party Leader Elizabeth May returned to London to preach her views on climate change where she accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of taking a stance that "represents a grievance worse than Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of the Nazis." (London Free Press, April 30, 2007)

“It is time for Stéphane Dion to make a decision, will he continue to have Ms. May and her radical views as his candidate in riding of Central Nova,” said Poilievre.  “This is just evidence of the extremism that exists within the Liberal – Green Party coalition between Stéphane Dion and Elizabeth May.”



For the record, here's the whole sentence in context from the Greens:

“The Manley Report fails to consider that the recommendation of more ISAF forces from a Christian/Crusader heritage will continue to fuel an insurgency that has been framed as a ‘Jihad’. This, in turn, may feed the recruitment of suicide bombers and other insurgents...”

 

[ModlrMike]

I'm particularly taken with this passage:

...the Canadian aid program in Afghanistan has been impeded not only by the dangerous security environment in Kandahar but by CIDA’s own administrative constraints. More than half of CIDA funding in Afghanistan flows through multilateral agencies, and another 35 per cent is channelled through national programs administered by the central government in Kabul. This leaves little for locally managed quick-action projects that bring immediate improvements to everyday life for Afghans, or for “signature” projects readily identifiable as supported by Canada. Funding allocations aside, CIDA staffers in Kandahar do not often venture beyond their base, in part, we were told, because of restrictive security regulations maintained by CIDA’s headquarters in Canada. While it is undeniably difficult to place civilians in a conflict zone, CIDA should delegate decisions about security of movement to civilian and military officials on the ground who are best placed to make such assessments. It makes little sense to post brave and talented professional staff to Kandahar only to restrict them from making regular contact with the people they are expected to help...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/01/guts-of-manley-panel-report.html

My own experience last tour does not contradict this. The military was significantly more efficient at delivering reconstruction dollars directly to the Afghans. CIDA needs to streamline the way in which money flows from Ottawa to the population being helped. Instead of having money siphoned off at various levels, the on the ground official should have much wider powers to disburse the funds as needed. Not only would this reduce the chance or the appearance of corruption within the various levels of government, it would provide a more meaningful approach to reconstruction and development.

Edit for spelling.