The CF After Afghanistan - Missions, Roles & Capabilities

[Armymedic]

Just consider it a tac pause for a yr or so before we go right back in again.

 

[MarkOttawa]

A post at The Torch:

Out of Afghanistan
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/09/out-of-afghanistan.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[The_Falcon]

I'm surprised no one's actually picked up on the fact that Harper didn't say "the CF will be withdrawn from Afghanistan in 2011". What he said was "the mission as we know it will end." That could mean anything from a deployment to a quieter region, to the existing commitment plus a whole lot more development aid. Words are being put into his mouth so that he will have to correct them and be made to look bad. I think it's safe to say that the Globe is throwing everything they've got towards taking down the Conservatives.

I noticed and thought the same thing.  Harper is just trying to get this issue (our afghan commitment) out of the way early in the campaign so it doesn't hang on him like a millstone.  As well as to alay concerns in the event he lands another minority government, and has to do the consensus building all over again.  In the long shot that he lands a Majority, he has set himself up with enough wiggle room that he can say we are staying but now with x role, and y mission name, instead of the current ones, and still say he kept his election promise.

 

[forcerecon85]

Define "getting the job done". If it means eliminating the Taliban then we will be there for decades.

I just meant the goals we have set out to complete by 2011, training the ANA, wiping out polio in the province, fixing that dam(the name escapes me at the moment) and there were a few others. I may still be a civy but I know killing all TB won't end the war

 

[a_majoor]

The ultimate "getting the job done" wont even start until 2015, when the 6 million children who started going to school in 2005 begin to graduate. Until there is a critical mass of people educated people in Afghanistan, then there will be no reconstruction and reform of Afghanistan from within.

I suspect the ANA can carry much of the security load by 2011, and the field force might be able to be scaled back to mentoring and the occasional "cavalry" role, but that still leaves a four year gap to 2015. Since the fate of Afghanistan and potentially central Asia is at stake, the issue should not be decided by partisan political considerations.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The ultimate "getting the job done" wont even start until 2015, when the 6 million children who started going to school in 2005 begin to graduate. Until there is a critical mass of people educated people in Afghanistan, then there will be no reconstruction and reform of Afghanistan from within.

I suspect the ANA can carry much of the security load by 2011, and the field force might be able to be scaled back to mentoring and the occasional "cavalry" role, but that still leaves a four year gap to 2015. Since the fate of Afghanistan and potentially central Asia is at stake, the issue should not be decided by partisan political considerations.

Only on this forum have i ever seen the reality of the Afghan war stated so clearly, it is a generational war, this generation must have a critical mass get an useful education to turn the tide, the Taliban are quite aware that education is their true enemy. The West fumbled the ball early on and is paying for it now, also many quiet areas are being ignored, when they should have had major infrastructure improvements taking place.

 

[dwalter]

I think this is a major problem with western political theorist's predictions of how we can help these countries that "need" western influence. They assume we can march in and change things over night, but as Afghanistan has proven, it isn't a fast process. It might take even more than one generation before the level of educated individuals becomes enough to drastically change the region's attitudes. Also keep in mind all the effort, time, and lives put into the project just within the first 6 years.

Returning to the article for a moment, one point I was shocked about was Mr. Layton's rebuttal to Mr. Harper's declaration. The NDP leader made comments that the only way to solve the problem in Afghanistan is through negotiation with the Taliban. That statement was rather surprising, and unfortunately idealistic. I am a big fan of diplomacy and negotiation, however both groups need to have a desire to negotiate, and somehow I don't think the Taliban would be convinced to even sit at the table right now.

 

[gnplummer421]

I wrote some posts on this topic on the CBC.CA website, and I should have known better. Some of the replies and posts were downright cowardice. It became an exercise in frustration. It appears it is the same posters spewing nonsense on every topic, but the things I read on there just make you shake your head....awful.

Posts like "We are supposed to be there as Peacekeepers" or "we are only there because of the Oil and Bush"  are people really that stupid?

Has anybody else experienced the frustration on this particuar website? (CBC)

Gnplummer421

 

[George Wallace]

It seems that the Taliban may have won another Political victory over the West.  We all questioned the Spanish, Italians and other nations when they withdrew troops from Afghanistan after Taliban threats and bombings.  Now we see our own Politicians running with their tails between their legs.  Even many who don't agree with us being in Afghanistan have realized that to pull out now is going to do Afghans no good and probably undo everything we have accomplished to date.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, is a father of a fallen Canadian Soldier's response to Harper's announcement:






Father of slain soldier upset over Harper's comments

The father of a Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan says his son would have died in vain if Canada pulls its troops out of the country before the mission is complete.

11/09/2008 8:09:20 AM

CTV.ca News Staff

On Wednesday, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said Canada's military commitment in Afghanistan will end in 2011 as scheduled.

Jim Davis, whose son Cpl. Paul Davis died when his light armoured vehicle rolled over during a patrol in Kandahar in March 2006, said Thursday he was shocked by Harper's comments.

"I couldn't believe he would say something so irresponsible as that," Davis told CTV's Canada AM.

Davis said it would be ideal to have Canadian soldiers home by 2011 but setting a deadline "undermines the work our soldiers are doing and it undermines the mission."

He said the deadline makes it difficult for Canadian soldiers to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people if they know troops will be gone in two years.

"I would never want to see another soldier go in harm's way so I can justify my son's death," said Davis. "But at the same time if we pull up stakes and come home when we're not ready to -- when the mission is not complete -- if we did that then my son died in vain."

Last March, Parliament overwhelmingly passed a motion to extend the military mission in Afghanistan to 2011.

Harper said Wednesday Canadians have no appetite to keep soldiers in the country past the agreed pullout date.

He also added that military leaders, although they won't say so publicly, feel that a decade of war is enough.

"You have to put an end date on these things ... we have to say to the government of Afghanistan that there is an expectation that you are going to be responsible for your own security," Harper said Wednesday.

Retired Canadian Maj.-Gen. Lew Mackenzie said Thursday he's against setting deadlines but Canada's situation in Afghanistan has a unique context.

"NATO has failed miserably to generate the resources to win this thing," Mackenzie told CTV's Canada AM.

"Canada's more than paid its dues... way more than any other member of the 26 NATO alliance proportionally."

Although the bulk of the troops will be out by 2011, Harper did say there may some Canadian soldiers who stay in the country as advisers.


LINK in Title.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I wrote some posts on this topic on the CBC.CA website, and I should have known better. Some of the replies and posts were downright cowardice. It became an exercise in frustration. It appears it is the same posters spewing nonsense on every topic, but the things I read on there just make you shake your head....awful.

Posts like "We are supposed to be there as Peacekeepers" or "we are only there because of the Oil and Bush"  are people really that stupid?

Has anybody else experienced the frustration on this particuar website? (CBC)

Gnplummer421

It's enough to make someone go postal, sadly the feature attracts the lowest life forms around.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I hope that there might have been just a tiny bit of strategic thought behind the Prime Minister’s announcement – but I also hope I will win the lottery and one of these days I might even buy a ticket!

Prime Minister Harper says he wants to take a different approach (from Chrétien/Martin, presumably) to the world – and not just in military terms either. I hope he does.

Taking a new road, however, does not neutralize the threats that lurk on the old one. We cannot move so quickly, not even in a reverse direction, to escape those threats. In any event, Harper probably doesn’t want to shout “About turn!” and go face à face with the Russians in Eastern Europe. More than likely he wants to go in the same general direction as the current heading, maybe just a few degrees one side or the other of it.

I also think that the strategic calculus is changing, in fact I would go so far as to say that I know the strategic calculus is changing because it always does – it’s a bit like climate change in that respect. The change is that new threats to our vital interests in the world are emerging. The old current challenges are not going away, they are not even diminishing very much, they are just being forced to share the stage with new ones.

Three specific ‘new’ issues are highly visible:

1. China rising – we have a whole other thread on that;

2. Putin’s Russia – about which we also talk a whole lot; and

3. The Bottom Billion – an idea based on a book of the same name, it is a relatively newly seen threat, not much discussed here, yet.

Of course, the Al Qaeda and friends threat remains, as menacing as ever.

Timothy Garton Ash deals with China Rising, Putin’s Russia, the remaining Al Qaeda and friends threat and authoritarian capitalism in a comment in today’s Globe and Mail. It’s worth a read.

I believe the Bottom Billion is a threat to us. This is a change of position for me. I have argued, sometimes quite vociferously, that Canada has no vital interests in Africa and that we should, therefore, just let the place go to hell in its own hand-basket without doing anything beyond some ‘feel good’ humanitarian assistance – at the band-aid level. I still believe we have no vital interests in Africa but that does not mean that we simply ignore Africa. I have two reasons for saying that:

1. Governments, including ours must respond to the public will (however ill-informed that may be – or however ill-informed I may think it is). The public will can be informed, shaped and even led by the commentariat. I sense a growing consensus in that commentariat for active intervention – much, much more than just band-aid level humanitarian assistance – in Africa, starting, possibly, with Darfur; and

2. I think the Bottom Billion is going to force itself on us – maybe by some direct attacks, more likely just by allowing itself to be used by others.

The Bottom Billion share a number of socio-economic and political attributes:

• A weak, even retarded political culture. Minimally competent, not even good, government is essential to avoid the litany of problems that follow. Unfortunately minimally competent government is unavailable throughout the Bottom Billion – from Afghanistan through Zimbabwe;

• Poverty is a normal by-product of weak political cultures. Now, it may be that we have poor always with us, but poverty breeds ...

• Despair. And despair breeds ...

• Radicalism and a sense that almost anything is better than what one has now;

• Now add Islamic Fundamentalism. Islam is the fastest growing religion – especially in Africa. It offers, as did Christianity 1,000 or 1,500 years ago, simple solutions: “Obey my god’s laws,” say the shamans, “and after your miserable life on this earth ends you will have a heavenly time in paradise.” Since the god’s laws look suspiciously like those already enforces by the prince or sultan or local dictator it’s not a hard choice to make. Islam, I say again, is not the problem – but certain radical, fundamentalists, militant sub-sets of Islam are problems, they are dangerous, they are our enemies; and

• Anti-Westernism is a common by-product of radicalism and Islamic Fundamentalism. People, especially poor, desperate people and even more especially radicals need someone to blame: we’re it!

Now, for Africa, add AIDS to that. In Africa AIDS is an epidemic. A generation is being lost: a generation of teachers, a generation of engineers, a generation of health care providers, a generation of entrepreneurs and, and, and ... a generation of leaders. Africa cannot build minimally competent governments that will pull their countries out of disease, despair and poverty if they have no teachers, no engineers, no entrepreneurs and so on.

I think we’re heading for Africa – with military forces. Not in 2008, perhaps not in 2009, either – but not too long from now. I think the military/security and humanitarian aid operations in Africa are going to be worse than Afghanistan: more difficult, more dangerous, more bloody – Canadians will kill and Canadian will die.

Maybe Prime Minister Harper understands that the strategic calculus is changing.

Maybe he will want to advance a Chrétien/Martin/Graham idea: the CF should be amongst the “first in” to operations in tough, hard to reach, dangerous places but we should also be amongst the “early out” nations – leaving as soon as the ‘host nation’ and less sophisticated, less militarily capable ‘helper’ nations can do the security/aid jobs well enough.

Fast in/early out is a good model for a tough, superbly disciplined, very well trained, properly equipped, logistically capable and strategically mobile military force – like ours.

 

[MarkOttawa]

The CF in Afstan: A modest, middle ground, proposal.

Thinking outside the bun. Why essentially all or nothing? Keep the mission as is or basically bug out? Surely there might be other military possibilities.

Propose to NATO keeping a CF presence at Kandahar/Kandahar . But get out of the ground combat role. Ask other NATO members to take on that mission whilst the CF's role becomes mainly an Air Force one.

Keep Chinooks (helicopters badly needed by ISAF) and UAVs there to assist replacement ISAF ground forces. Plus Hercules and C-17 support as required for ISAF (if it still exists) forces. Plus one or two companies of infantry for whatever ground support is needed. That sort of deployment would also require much smaller numbers for logistics/support and command.

Seems reasonable to me, reduces the risk of Canadian casualties, yet still helps considerably whatever allied ground combat/helping ANA in action forces that might replace the Canadian battle group. Such a mission should not be too politically controversial in Canada. Why not run it up appropriate flagpoles? It would be worthwhile in military terms.

Unless the Canadian mission really is just about diplomacy and domestic politics rather than one based on a judgement about real Canadian national interests that necessitate use, to some extent or another, of the Canadian Forces on still dangerous missions.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

This topic is being discussed on arrse under the inflamatory heading: Canada Surrenders to Taliban.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=105150.html

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is national affairs columnist Jeffrey Simpson’ view on the topic at hand:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080911.wcosimp12/BNStory/politics/home

Harper has done our soldiers - and their sacrifices - a disservice

JEFFREY SIMPSON

From Friday's Globe and Mail
September 11, 2008 at 11:01 PM EDT

TORONTO — The Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is worsening, with increasing support from across the border in Pakistan. Every objective report from onsite journalists, government officials, think tanks, the U.S. military and academic studies confirms the discouraging trend.

As a result, both candidates for the U.S. presidency are on record recommending additional troops be deployed there. The Bush administration has committed more than 3,000 troops, some of which are being deployed in Kandahar to help Canadian forces in that turbulent province.

The Canadian Parliament, in a resolution negotiated principally between the government and the Liberal Opposition, decreed that the country's military mission end in 2011. But one parliament's decision doesn't necessarily bind another's, and who knows how the situation will evolve between now and 2011.

These are among the reasons why Prime Minister's Stephen Harper's declaration this week that Canada would withdraw its military forces from Kandahar by 2011 merely restated an existing position, but also foreclosed any possibility of change, even if he wins a majority government.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Afghanistan knows that the battle for security there will go on for years. The Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and their al-Qaeda and jihadist allies, have all along understood they had the advantage of time.

They assumed that sooner, rather than later, foreigners such as Canadians would lose resolve, decide their losses were not worth the effort, and leave. Mr. Harper has now confirmed their assumptions, no matter how the situation develops in the next two years. Their willingness to wait out the NATO commitment until cracks began to show confirms the wisdom of the Canadian journalist Patrick Brown's observation about Afghanistan in his latest book, Butterfly Mind, that "eventually all outsiders have worn out their welcome."

So what now is the purpose of remaining, let alone risking their lives, would be the appropriate question Canadian soldiers in the field will ask. They must know that the struggle for Afghanistan will be long. They now know that Canada will be gone.

Implicitly, they are being told the mission, however defined, cannot succeed, because if progress were being made, and if success, however defined, seemed possible, no political leader would be committing at this point in time to leave in 2011. He would keep things flexible, waiting on events, talking to allies and to the Afghan government, holding open the option of returning to a new Parliament with an amended motion if one seemed appropriate.

That would be the statesmanlike position, in the face of demands for immediate withdrawal coming from the NDP or hesitation from the Liberals. But we are in an election campaign. During campaigns, potential sources of vulnerability must be addressed, especially when casualties bleed public support for the mission.

Statesmanship be damned in the heat of a campaign, such as the NDP ads in French linking Mr. Harper with U.S. President George W. Bush. Whatever one thinks of the Harper government, fairness demands that large differences be noted between it and the Bush administration on fiscal and economic policy, climate-change negotiations, social conservatism. That the two countries have been fighting together in Afghanistan arose from a mission sponsored by the United Nations and eventually co-ordinated (although not very well) by NATO.

Canada's NATO allies examining the parliamentary resolution must have at least hoped Canada could change its mind before 2011. They now know Canada's certain departure will blow a big hole in one of Afghanistan's most unstable provinces.

To say that Afghans must fend for themselves in Kandahar after 2011 is to say that quite likely chaos and even more violence will ensue, unless another NATO country takes Canada's place. And that country will almost certainly be the United States.

Those Canadians who have died in Afghanistan, and those who will die, were sent there on an ill-defined mission that defied most of the rules of counterinsurgency, but was promoted by an enthusiastic general, a scrambling Liberal government and a subsequent Conservative one, and that now we know cannot end in success despite their sacrifice.

The article ends with a sneak attack on Gen (Ret’d) Rick Hillier – pushing a party line set forth by former Liberal insider Eugene Lang. That ‘new narrative’ is based on a lie and Simpson ought to be smart enough to know that. Simpson does move a bit towards the truth by requiring a former, defeated Liberal government to share the “blame” because it was, indeed, scrambling to “do something,” somewhere to put some immediate meat on the bones of Martin’s “Role of Pride and Influence in the World” proposals. I am comfortable with Stephen Harper sharing the “blame” because it remains quite clear to me that the original HoC resolution (May 2006) to extend the mission (to 2009) was proposed for totally partisan political purposes – to embarrass the Liberals.

But it is fun to watch Simpson twist himself back over, under, around and through his previous (anti-war) positions in order to attack Harper.

He does, however, make one key Constitutional and one sensible, practical point:

• Constitutionally, “one parliament's decision doesn't necessarily bind another's”; and

• Practically, “who knows how the situation will evolve between now and 2011.”

If Harper is faced with a different situation he may have to change his mind; he wouldn’t be the first nor will he be the last to break campaign promises, remember Trudeau on wage and price controls, Mulroney on free trade and Chrétien on the GST? As to mind changing: remember Trudeau’s walk in the park with Helmut Schmidt in the mid 1970s? It fundamentally altered the (effective disarmament) plans he had already begun to roll out.

But, I repeat, Afghanistan is not the only threat out there and we ought to have enough (military) eggs to fill more than one (mission) basket. Failing that it may be prudent to declare out fair share “done” and get ready for other, even more difficult conflicts.

 

[GAP]

I think what the nub of the whole issue revolves around is the letdown of Harper's "Not Cut and Run" statements, then, to get support in Quebec, he does exactly that...

Things may change before 2011, but the disappointment is acute...

 

[Nemo888]

Agreed. No one really seems to understand the incredible resolve needed to win a ground war in Asia. I hope they don't try to take the route the Russians did, but forgetting history seems to be the politically expedient route.

"The first step of the exit strategy was to transfer the burden of fighting the mujahideen to the Afghan armed forces, with the aim of preparing them to operate without Soviet help. During this phase, the Soviet contingent was restricted to supporting the DRA forces by providing artillery, air support and technical assistance, though some large-scale operations were still carried out by Soviet troops.

Under Soviet guidance, the DRA armed forces were built up to an official strength of 302,000 in 1986. To minimize the risk of a coup d'état, they were divided into different branches, each modeled on its Soviet counterpart. The ministry of defense forces numbered 132,000, the ministry of interior 70,000 and the ministry of state security (KHAD) 80,000. However, these were theoretical figures: in reality each service was plagued with desertions, the army alone suffering 32,000 per year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

 

[Snafu-Bar]

I think what the nub of the whole issue revolves around is the letdown of Harper's "Not Cut and Run" statements, then, to get support in Quebec, he does exactly that...

Things may change before 2011, but the disappointment is acute...

What's to say if he gets re-elected to change his mind after winning another term?

I can see him pulling an about face on it quite easily in fact. It was after all a promise to be broken.

Cheers

 

[aesop081]

What's to say if he gets re-elected to change his mind after winning another term?

Exactly. In saying "out in 2011", Harper has effectively , IMHO, sealed the issue for the rest of the campaign. We all know how minds change the day after an ellectoral victory right ?

 

[McG]

I'd prefer no party include deliberate deception/obfuscation as part of their platform.  I understand that situations change & sometimes governments cannot stick to the promises made.  That is quite different than making promises with no intent of execution.  If you don't mean it, then don't say it.

 

[Proud_Newfoundlander]

"Loonie left"  ??

Public support for Afghan mission lowest ever: poll
Last Updated: Friday, September 5, 2008 | 7:50 PM ET Comments272Recommend80
CBC News
The number of Canadians who disapprove of the country's military action in Afghanistan is at its highest point since 2002, according to the results of a new poll sponsored by CBC News.

The survey, conducted by Environics between Friday and Tuesday, found that 34 per cent of respondents "strongly disapprove" of Canada's participation in military action in Afghanistan, while 22 per cent "somewhat disapprove," making a total of 56 per cent.

By comparison, 41 per cent of respondents were in favour of military action, with 14 per cent saying they "strongly approve" and 27 per cent "somewhat approve."

The latest figures stand in contrast to previous responses to the same survey question, posed in March 2008, where 54 per cent of respondents said they disapproved and 44 per cent said the opposite.

The March numbers had represented the highest level of disapproval since polling began in 2002, the same year Canada launched its military mission in Afghanistan.

Do you strongly approve or somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of Canada’s participation in military action in Afghanistan?

Answer %
Strongly approve

14

Somewhat approve

27

Somewhat disapprove

22

Strongly disapprove

34

Don't know/No answer

3

"Overall, the level of disapproval of our involvement is at its highest point that we've seen in our tracking, and support is at its lowest," Donna Dasko, senior vice-president of Environics Research Group, told CBC News on Friday.

"So we can see the public is clearly, at this point, leaning against the mission."

A total of 2,505 people from across the country were surveyed by telephone for the latest Environics poll. It is considered accurate to within plus or minus two percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Also down is the number of Canadians who think the Canadian mission in Afghanistan is likely to be successful.

Only 28 per cent of respondents said they think the Canadian mission in Afghanistan is likely to be successful, compared with 34 per cent who responded affirmatively during a November 2006 poll.

The current number of Canadians who said the mission wasn't likely to be successful was 65 per cent, compared with 58 per cent in the 2006 poll. In both instances, seven per cent of people said they did not know.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/05/poll-afghan.html

Yes, but it is the looney left and isolationist nationalists who have influenced the canadian public (mostly in urban south ontario, as quebec has always been like this). Another note on Quebec, they will always go against intervention, even peacekeeping wasn't an easy sell to large numbers of Quebeckers. Also take into account 1/4 of the population is from Quebec, and 3/4 of them will generally oppose any sort of intervention. Makes the support higher in the rest of canada.