Here are a series of editorial agreeing with Mr. Layton's position that there should be more open info, and public debate IRT the future deployments to Afghanistan:
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=4086aa67-8be3-45fd-ade8-a145ba045b4e
Why are we in Afghanistan?
Revised purpose of mission requires full Ottawa disclosure
Calgary Herald
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
The same federal government that can stretch a debate on buying new equipment for its Armed Forces over decades is about to send 2,000 Edmonton-based soldiers to Afghanistan to engage in Canada's largest combat deployment since the Korean War, with an astonishing lack of public discussion.
Combat missions differ in kind and risk from the peacekeeping missions that have become more familiar to Canadians. Indeed, casualties in this new assignment to Kandahar have been predicted by both commanders involved, and more recently by Defence Minister Bill Graham.
Sadly, they are probably right: Unlike the police-style deployment with the International Security Assistance Force to stabilize Kabul, Canadian troops will now be seeking out Taliban gunmen in the area where the movement first took hold. It is a highly dangerous situation.
With an election in progress, one might suppose Ottawa would have been eager to explain the reason for this escalation from peacekeeping to peacemaking.
But, it seems curiously unwilling. Ministerial commentary has been infrequent, and when our sister paper the National Post requested a copy of the document describing federal intentions in Afghanistan, it was denied.
Canadians are therefore left to speculate. Certainly, it is in Canada's national interest to take its place with other western nations confronting terrorism, and to take the war on terrorism to its sources, of which Afghanistan is one. And, Canadian efforts to rebuild Afghan infrastructure damaged by decades of war have been praiseworthy; to some extent they have been facilitated by its military presence there.
Still, it is hard to forget Canada's new role in Afghanistan (as opposed to its initial six-month post-9/11 deployment) was driven principally by Ottawa's need for a good reason not to join the U.S.-led war in Iraq. If all available Canadian troops were in Kabul, there would be none to spare for Baghdad, went the reasoning; so, when the Coalition of the Willing was being assembled, the Canadian government could pose as not completely unwilling, just distracted.
This coming deployment appears to be a continuation of that policy -- but, at a time when its original purpose has disappeared. For, in the aftermath of successful elections, the U.S. is looking at winding down its military presence in Iraq, not seeking new contributors.
If Ottawa has decided to embark upon a robust engagement with worldwide terrorism in Afghanistan, many Canadians would support it.
However, all concerned deserve assurance the possible sacrifice asked of their young men and women is indeed in the service of a great enterprise, and not just to protect somebody's political skin.
With six weeks to go before the 1st Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry leaves, Canadians do not have such confidence.
Ottawa should come clean.
http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/051224/npt/051224at.htm
'Conspiracy of silence' over Afghanistan: Kandahar operations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six weeks from today, the first of more than 2,000 soldiers will begin stepping off their transports and into Canada's largest combat mission since the end of the Korean War.
Canadians have already seen action in southern Afghanistan. The commandos of the army's elite special forces unit JTF-2 have reportedly been conducting combat operations since last September, six soldiers have been wounded in Taliban attacks and one died after a road accident last month.
And after Task Force Aegis arrives, beginning on Feb. 1, military officials have repeatedly said that Canadians should be prepared for more casualties to arise from the army's deployment to the dangerous Kandahar region.
Yet there has been no formal motion in Parliament, little public debate and critics say no clear statement from the government about what Canada's goals are for its latest mission in Afghanistan.
Kim Nossal, a professor of political science at Queen's University, says the Canadian public deserves more public discussion before our troops are sent into harm's way, something successive federal governments have been loath to do.
"No one will come out and say: 'We have considered this and we are going to war,' because that's what's going on in Afghanistan," Prof. Nossal said. "There are people out there who are trying to kill Canadians."
The government has prepared a document outlining its long-term plan for the mission in Afghanistan, a 2002 paper titled "Strategic Objectives of the Canadian Forces and the Government of Canada."
However, when the National Post requested the document under federal access to information legislation the government refused to release anything but the cover pages, citing Cabinet confidentiality.
"This is all about being able to sell a combat mission to a hugely skeptical Canadian public," Prof. Nossal said. "There's been a kind of conspiracy of silence among Canada's political elite to steadfastly avoid talking about why exactly we're there.
"They simply avoid the whole topic of what our purpose is in Afghanistan."
He said the government's secret policy statement is probably an unimpressive document because Canada's reasons for being in Afghanistan have as much to do with domestic politics as foreign affairs.
"If it were truly honest, it would say something like: 'We've got to clean up the mess made by [former prime minister Jean] Chretien; we've got to repair our relations with the U.S. and be seen to be doing something useful', " he said. "So why not go to Afghanistan?"
"That's not much of a reason to be sending our young men and women into harm's way."
More than 1,500 people have been killed this year in the deadliest violence in Afghanistan since U.S.-led forces ousted the hardline Taliban from power in 2001.
Although high-profile bombings on Canadian convoys around Kandahar have made headlines over the past few weeks, the issue has rated barely a mention during the ongoing federal election campaign.
Two weeks ago Jack Layton, the NDP leader, questioned the decision to send more Canadian troops to Afghanistan, particularly on a much more aggressive mission than the earlier "peace support" for Kabul.
"We appear to be drifting from our original mission there -- which was to provide security in the capital region --and into a combat role side by side with American troops," Mr. Layton observed in a statement. "We must not drift into a war blindly or secretly, on the say-so of one man ... If Paul Martin wants to involve Canada directly in a war in Afghanistan, then he must spell out what our goals are, what our commitments will be and when and how we will get out.
"We then require a real national debate and a clear democratic decision taken by Parliament."
Bill Graham, the Defence Minister, did not return repeated telephone calls from the Post seeking comment, but a spokeswoman said the Minister gave a speech last fall in which he warned Canadians to expect casualties during the Kandahar mission.
There was also an evening debate in the House of Commons last month on the Afghan mission, with a handful of MPs speaking at length on the topic. But the House and the public galleries were almost empty, the debate drew no interest from the media and no motion was voted upon.
Meanwhile, the two nations that are supposed to be joining the Canadian-led brigade in Kandahar have been having some very public second thoughts.
Newspaper reports last week suggested that the British government was reconsidering its commitment of as many as 5,000 troops. A decision on the matter was expected months ago and the delay is reportedly causing frustration among British army commanders.
One officer told The Scotsman newspaper that if the British force is not a sizeable one, the entire mission to Afghanistan should be reconsidered.
"There are people asking if we should be doing it at all," the unnamed officer said. "There has been discussion about a rethink, maybe not doing it at all, though that does not seem very likely."
Britain currently has about 900 troops in Afghanistan, mainly in Kabul and the northern provinces.
The other major contributor to the Canadian brigade was to have been the Dutch. However, that country's Cabinet has postponed a decision on its deployment of more than 1,000 soldiers amid concerns about security in the more dangerous southern part of the country.
The Dutch government agreed on Thursday to send its soldiers, but opponents of the deployment could mount resistance in Parliament.
The Dutch contribution will eventually include six F16 fighters, six Apache attack helicopters and armoured vehicles and mortars.
It took months of wrangling to persuade other NATO members to agree to supply troops, with France and Germany in particular balking at the idea.
NATO agreed earlier this month to boost its Kabul-based International Security Assistance Force to about 15,000 troops next year from around 9,000, with Britain due to take command and deploy troops in the south alongside Canadian and Dutch forces.
Until NATO takes over next summer, the Canadians will be operating under U.S. command.
The United States is anxious for the NATO-led force to take over from its Regional Command South, based at Kandahar, allowing it to withdraw up to 3,000 soldiers from Afghanistan.
http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/051228/npt/051228c0.htm
Armed Forces should break the 'silence'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: 'Conspiracy Of Silence' Over Afghanistan, Dec. 24.
The federal government's refusal to release a document titled "Strategic Objectives of the Canadian Forces and the Government of Canada," which purportedly outlines its long-term plan for the mission in Afghanistan, to the National Post is not in keeping with General Rick Hillier's stated intention of keeping Canadians informed.
Prior to the mission to Afghanistan, the Chief of the Defence Staff told Canadians that Canadian troops would target "detestable murderers and scumbags abroad -- rooting out and killing an enemy that has shown no mercy for those seeking democracy."
Gen. Hillier also said "he would continue to explain what his troops are doing -- which hasn't been peacekeeping for more than 10 years. Canadians, he said, have to wake up to the new reality," whether Canadians like it or not.
Unfortunately, as Chris Wattie's story confirms, part of that "new reality" is that "six Canadian soldiers have been wounded in Taliban attacks and one died after a road accident last month."
Meanwhile, many of us are still waiting to hear from whoever it was that made the policy decision that has so altered our perception of ourselves as Canadians -- from model citizens focused on issues like pluralism, democracy, the rule of law and human rights -- to an aggressor abroad.
Keith Deriger, Gatineau, Que
If both British and Dutch Parliments are having difficulty getting behind thier respective deployments, how much support would there be here in Canada?
