The CF After Afghanistan - Missions, Roles & Capabilities

[maniac779]

While I don't think we should be setting fixed dates on withdrawl from the Afghan conflict, I do wonder how much longer we can sustain the mission as it is right now.

When one thinks of the incredible amount of resources that the mission takes up, it's quickly realized that between the guys who just got off tour, the guys on tour and the guys working up for the next one, the number of people with just one degree of separating from the mission approaches 10% our military.

We all know people who are on their second, third and in more and more cases, fourth tour. I am sure we also know guys who have released because of this kind op tempo... these being the types of people we should be trying to keep at all costs as they have a wealth of operational knowledge and experience, the likes of which have not been seen in our ranks in a long time.

It seems to me that sooner or later we won't have much of a choice but to change our role in the mission so as to enable a sort of regenerative process, akin to a rest day after a hard workout... The rest is required for us to come ahead stronger and more capable.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[tomahawk6]

The OPTEMPO wouldnt be quite as bad if the infantry battalions could be brought up to 110% of authorized strength. It all comes down to recruiting and doing what it takes to fill the vacancies money wise. Manning the forces should be a national priority and making pay competitive with civvie street an imperative.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

T6,

Canada has a tradition over 130 years long of fighting wars on the cheap.  This one will be no exception...

 

[john10]

(There wasn't any discussion of this in the main Afghanistan thread and only a smidgen in the 'Taliban momentum' thread so I thought I'd start a new topic)

Last week, Prime Minister Harper announced that the Canadian mission in Afghanistan would end in 2011: "You have to put an end date on these things. We intend to end it."

This language leaves no place to think the mission will continue in some form. And going back on this statement would be politically unthinkable and guarantee an election loss.

Personally, I find this very disheartening. It is basically cutting and running. The mission will come to a term based on an arbitrary withdrawal date rather than a determination that our objectives there have been successfully achieved.

 

[JimMorrison19]

From what I've read there are and will continue to be some issues that have yet to be addressed in Afghanistan's social and security systems, but some "conflicts" in doctrine will be there just because of cultural differences between Afghanistan and the nations who are peacekeeping there. I am reminded specifically of the article regarding Afghan police and the exploitation of young boys for sex, although I can't remember where that thread is.  ??? Issues like these certainly need to be dealt with in my mind.

 

[Snafu-Bar]

Between NOW and 2011 so many things can happen that the line delivered by Harper could have absolutley nothing to do with Afghanistan by then. Who knows tomorrow we could have a nuclear war on our hands...does it matter what happens in 2011 then?

Worry about tomorrow when it gets here, concentrate on today while you have the chance to do something about things that matter tomorrow. Forget yesterday, it's gone and nothing you do will change anything that happened.

Cheers.

 

[Celticgirl]

He also said: "At that point, the mission, as we've known it, we intend to end."

That's fairly open to interpretation, I think, and it could be the loophole he needs to extend the mission's non-combat roles.

Worry about tomorrow when it gets here, concentrate on today while you have the chance to do something about things that matter tomorrow. Forget yesterday, it's gone and nothing you do will change anything that happened.

Singing: Don't stop thinking about tomorrow, don't stop, it'll soon be here...yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone....

Sorry, I couldn't help myself after reading that.

 

[WannaBeFlyer]

I wonder what will happen when this report is released. Thus far, the polls have suggested the Blue machine was going to steam roll everyone else...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/indepth/fed_election/s/capress/080917/national/fedelxn_main

Harper says Yes to release of Afghan war cost report
1 hour, 42 minutes ago



By Martin O'Hanlon, The Canadian Press


OTTAWA - Stephen Harper has given his blessing to the release of a report on the cost of the Afghan war - a document that could sway Conservative fortunes in the vital electoral battleground of Quebec, where the mission is highly unpopular.

Parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page has tallied the full cost of the mission - past and future - and said he would like to release it. But he was worried about interfering with the federal election and asked for all-party consent. All opposition parties gave their blessing Tuesday, and the prime minister agreed Wednesday.


The minority Conservative government has estimated the cost of the six-year mission at under $8 billion. If the new figures are much higher, it could be bad news for Harper.
Polls have repeatedly shown that Canadians are lukewarm to the mission, especially in Quebec, where Harper must make gains to have any chance of winning his coveted majority. And critics suggest cost overruns in the Afghan mission could erase the government's shrinking surplus and put the country into deficit, especially given the economic slowdown. The Afghan mission has been a heavy burden for Canada with 97 soldiers and one diplomat killed. Canada has more than 2,000 personnel based in the dangerous Kandahar region.


The awkward timing of the Afghan report came as Harper made his most direct pitch yet for a majority government. He said Tuesday that he needs a "strong mandate" to fight crime and preserve law and order. He also said the country will need a forceful government to weather economic uncertainty.


Poll results in the first week of the election campaign suggested the Tories were in majority territory. But they have since slipped, as some voters leery of a Conservative majority apparently had second thoughts. The latest Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll suggests the Liberals are gaining on the Conservatives, whose lead has shrunk to 10 points from 15 last week. The survey put the Conservatives at 38 per cent support and the Liberals at 28.

All the party leaders were out on the hustings again Wednesday.
Dion was first out of the campaign blocks with a $600-million promise to boost support for students and research.
In a speech at the University of Western Ontario, Dion said Canada's productivity and economic success depend on investments in research and development.
He said a Liberal government would increase education grants and bursaries, and guarantee low-interest loans.

Layton was next with a multibillion-dollar national child-care plan. He promised to create 150,000 daycare spaces in the first year of an NDP government, at a cost of $1.4 billion - on top of current programs.
More money and spaces would be created in future years as funding permits, he said in Toronto.

Harper was in Welland, Ont., promising tough new measures aimed at discouraging access to tobacco and marketing to children.
He said his government would ban the use of flavours and additives, like bubble gum and cotton candy flavouring. He would also prohibit tobacco advertising on Internet sites and in publications that appeal to youth.

Green Leader Elizabeth May was in Halifax releasing her party's full platform, led by tax breaks for low-income earners and for industries that cut carbon emissions.
Like the Liberals, the Green are also proposing to cut income taxes and raise taxes on fossil fuels.

May also promised to:

-Hike the GST by one percentage point to help municipalities pay for improvements to their crumbling infrastructure and public transit.

-Allow income splitting.

-Reduce contributions by employers to Employment Insurance and the Canada Pension Plan.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I hope that there might have been just a tiny bit of strategic thought behind the Prime Minister’s announcement ...
...
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 ...

I mentioned that Africa is in crisis. It is now worsening as the ‘beacon’ for Black Africa unravels.

This report is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080923.wsapolitics0923/BNStory/International/home

SA cabinet members quit over Mbeki's ousting

STEPHANIE NOLEN

Globe and Mail Update
September 23, 2008 at 7:50 AM EDT

Johannesburg — Eleven South African cabinet ministers have quit in protest over the ousting of President Thabo Mbeki. The resignations leave nominated interim president, Kgalema Montlanthe, who has never served in government either, with a sharp dearth of people with experience in government to run Africa's richest and most powerful nation.

The resignations were announced in a statement by the office of the president. “The resignations will be effective from the day that the president's resignation takes effect,” the statement said. “All the ministers have expressed their availability to assist the incoming administration in the hand-over process and any other assistance that might be sought from them.”

Those leaving office include Finance Minister Trevor Manuel, the man credited with crafting the economic policies that led to South Africa's longest period of sustained economic growth, and the darling of international investors. Share prices on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange began to slide immediately in response to the news.

Ten others are stepping down including Minister of Public Works Thoko Didiza, who was considered highly effective in her efforts to extend services to the poor; Minister of Public Enterprises Alec Erwin, who was also respected by investors; Minister of Intelligence Ronnie Kasrils; Minister of Defence Mosiuoa Lekota; Minister of Provincial and Local Government Sydney Mufamadi; and Minister of Public Service and Administration Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi.

All are old friends or loyalists of Mr. Mbeki, who was forced by the ruling African National Congress to resign on Sunday night, when his long-time rival Jacob Zuma, the ANC president, emerged triumphant in their long power struggle.

They appear to have quit because they are unwilling to serve under Mr. Zuma, who continues to be dogged by a host of corruption allegations. A high court judge threw out a case against Mr. Zuma 10 days ago on a technicality, and suggested Mr. Mbeki may have meddled in his prosecution, clearing the way for Mr. Zuma's allies to oust him. But the judge pointedly did not rule on the corruption charges and invited the National Prosecuting Authority to lay fresh charges.

It is not clear whether Mr. Motlanthe - who is expected to be confirmed as president in a vote before parliament on Thursday - will attempt to reappoint them.

Oddly, among those who have chosen to stay in their posts is one of Mr. Mbeki's oldest friends, Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, who has been vilified here and internationally for her position on HIV-AIDS, which she advocates treating with traditional remedies. South Africa has the highest burden of HIV-AIDS in the world.

The ANC, in replacing Mbeki as leader and, therefore, as President, is doing the right thing, but this – less stability and leadership from South Africa – is the last thing Africa needs right now.

 

[GAP]

I can see SA, that inherited it's structure, declining dramatically over the next decade, almost to the level of Rhodesia.....Aparthate aside, this was once the jewel of Africa, an efficient government that functioned, and functioned very well for Africa, now it is degenerating into the Blacks squabbling among themselves....

 

[The Bread Guy]

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Defence Minister talks campus military recruitment, student debt
Peter MacKay seeks re-election against Green Party leader in St. FX riding
Danielle Webb, The Muse (Memorial University student paper), 24 Sept 08
Article link

Highlights on AFG (bolding mine):

....  MacKay believes a lot of Canadians simply misunderstand the various aspects of the role Canada is playing in Afghanistan.

He was quick to note the “very democratic vote” to extend the Afghanistan mission until February 2011.

“This is the first time that two separate votes on such an important international mission, that has UN-sanction, is NATO-led, and is there at the invitation of the Afghan government, also has the democratic endorsement of the Parliament of Canada,” he said.

“I can’t think of a more democratic expression from our country.”

“A lot of what gets lost on Canadians is the overwhelming focus on the combat mission,” he added.

But in addition to the security aspect, Canada is providing education, immunization, agriculture and infrastructure resources, and enabling women to participate in democracy, not only by voting, but by sitting in government, MacKay says.

“Twenty-seven per cent of the Afghan parliament now is comprised of women. That’s more than Canada. That’s progress,” he said.

MacKay notes the sacrifice that Canada is making in the Afghan mission – 97 soldiers and one diplomat have died since the mission began.

By the time the Canadian military finishes their mission in 2011, MacKay says Afghanis will have a greater ability to protect their own people, promote their own civil rights, and defend their sovereignty. Contributions to development and reconstruction will still continue past 2011 ....

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Canada won't rethink 2011 Afghanistan pullout after Obama win: Cannon
Last Updated: Wednesday, November 5, 2008 | 8:46 PM ET CBC News
The election of a new U.S. president who has vowed to deploy thousands more troops into Afghanistan won't cause Canada to reconsider its decision to pull out of the country by 2011, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said Wednesday.

The United States already has 36,000 troops in Afghanistan, and Barack Obama promised during his campaign for the presidency to send up to 12,000 more while scaling down operations in Iraq.

But Cannon said Obama's election would have no impact on Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to withdraw Canadian forces from the country.

"We welcome the renewed focus on Afghanistan on behalf of the president-elect," Cannon said. "The U.S. interest won't change our opinion or intention to withdraw our forces in 2011."

Cannon, who took over the Foreign Affairs portfolio from retiring Conservative MP David Emerson, also insisted that Canadian soldiers would not be redeployed away from the volatile Kandahar province to safer parts of the country after the date.

Harper made his own view explicitly clear during the recent federal election, when he said it was time to put an end date on Canada's military commitment.

Karzai urges halting air strikes
Obama, the Democratic candidate, opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 from the beginning, saying it distracted the focus and critically needed military resources away from the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Following Obama's election victory Tuesday night, Afghan President Hamid Karzai demanded that the newly-elected leader change U.S. tactics to reduce the number of civilian casualties, particularly from air strikes in recent months.

It came as villagers said U.S. warplanes killed 37 people — nearly all of them women and children — during a cat-and-mouse hunt for militants.

"We cannot win the fight against terrorism with air strikes," President Hamid Karzai said. "This is my first demand of the new president of the United States — to put an end to civilian casualties."

The alleged strikes came only three months after the Afghan government concluded that a U.S. operation killed some 90 civilians in western Afghanistan. After initially denying any civilians had died in that attack, a U.S. report ultimately concluded that 33 were killed.

Canada has about 2,500 troops stationed in Afghanistan, mostly in Kandahar. Since 2002, 98 Canadians have died in Afghanistan.

With files from the Canadian Press

 

[Colin Parkinson]

When the "One" comes to Canada and tells us to stay and fight, I will enjoy watching Layton and whoever leads the remains of the Liberals squirming in their seats, they will try to blame Bush, but I suspect that it will fall on deaf ears. Obama will need Canada to stay for the same reasons Bush did. I so do love the irony of it all.

 

[dapaterson]

There are plenty of other countries in the world in need of military assistance / intervention... the Army shouldn't be getting out the lawn chairs, sunglasses and lemonade in preparation for post-2011...

 

[Sub_Guy]

I was just talking about this yesterday, it will be interesting to see how the Canadian public reacts when the guy they all seem to love comes to Canada and asks us to stay there longer.

 

[gun runner]

"There are plenty of other countries in the world in need of military assistance / intervention... the Army shouldn't be getting out the lawn chairs, sunglasses and lemonade in preparation for post-2011..."

Ok, well then Dapaterson, where do you suspect the next big deployment will be? Somalia again? After all, they have no army. And the pirates are running amok on the high seas, in the face of the international community. It should be interesting to see where we will go. Ubique

 

[dapaterson]

Where?

Start in the Sudan.  Move to the Congo.  Zimbabwe is facing starvation and collapse.  Keep an eye on parts of South America, especialy if states reliant on high oil prices face internal instability with prices falling to $60 or less per barrel.

That's off the top of my head, without any detailed examination of all the world.  I'm sure people can come up with other plausible scenarios.

Oh, and keep in mind we have a minority government, still looking to broaden its base - so some pandering to the UN-philes would not be entirely surprising.

 

[Old Sweat]

In my somewhat cynical opinion, in order for us to withdraw gracefully from Afghanistan, we will have to be willing to spend blood and treasure somewhere else. The government may be able to negotiate a short pause, but the next place - wherever it is - is probably going to make the sand box look good.

Where is that apt to be? Dapaterson has come up with a few choice places. I could think of a couple more. Who knows? We might as fall back on the Old Sweat geopolitical indicator; if its name ends with a vowel, watch out.

 

[Greymatters]

"There are plenty of other countries in the world in need of military assistance / intervention... the Army shouldn't be getting out the lawn chairs, sunglasses and lemonade in preparation for post-2011..."

Ok, well then Dapaterson, where do you suspect the next big deployment will be? Somalia again? After all, they have no army. And the pirates are running amok on the high seas, in the face of the international community. It should be interesting to see where we will go. Ubique

That's a hard question for anyone to answer.  Natural disasters, industrial accidents, airplane crashes, civil wars, terrorists, none of the people involved in these phone us up and say "Hey, is this NDCC?  Just wanted to say hi, oh, and by the way we're having this thing in a couple of months, would you mind showing up...?"

But without doubt, since 1990 there has always been something, and there always will be something, to keep our troops busy both domestically and internationally...

Edit - oops, excess words, fixed it...

 

[Danjanou]

...Ok, well then Dapaterson, where do you suspect the next big deployment will be? Somalia again? After all, they have no army. And the pirates are running amok on the high seas, in the face of the international community. It should be interesting to see where we will go. Ubique

I’m with DAP, ( and damn glad I’m too old fat and sick to be called back in)

Sudan- but not as fuzzy hug blue beret wearing teddy bear handing out types ala Jack wants. I think any NATO/UN Peace enforcement force will probably have to fight their way in and for those who don’t thing that will be tough google map the place especially the rail line to the coast.

Zimbabwe- long overdue and as we were part of the Lancaster House Peace Process that put Uncle Bob in over the moderate during the second round of free and fair elections (he declared the first round illegal because he didn’t win) we can add the it was our fault guilt line along with it is a Commonwealth country bit.

Congo/Zaire, unless there’s another Mad Mike Hoare floating around this one could make Afghanistan look like Cyprus. Read the history of conflicts in this place from the 1960s on.

Any other assorted sub Saharan Afrcian Republic could be added to the list as many are simmering now, Kenya, South Africa et cetera et cetera.

Closer to home we have that long running sore Haiti, where I’m sure we’ll be again and again and again. Colombia is close to collapse as is Venezuela (see DAPs comments re oil), Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala are all possibles as is Belize ( invasion from Guatemala while the Brits are busy elsewhere). Finally don’t forget Cuba, Fidel is on life support, Raoul is no financial genius, (actually strike the financial part form that), and the place exists on tourist dollars and euros now. With a world wide economic downturn underway how many dropped their week in the sun from the household budget?

Best case scenario would be a single op in any of these places to go in and get our locals out like in Lebanon a few years back. Worst six months at a Latin American All inclusive where the activities may not be beach volleyball. Be real hard to back out of any ops in this part of the world it being our hemisphere and all.

Back in the near east, even exiting from Afghanistan for whatever reason still leaves Iran, Pakistan, Syria et cetera et cetera.

Switching to Asia we have Indonesia, Burma, Southern Philippines and Radical Islamic uprising in Southern Thailand now.

Actually about the only place I can’t foresee us (sorry you lot) possibly being deployed in the next 1-2 decades is Antarctica and that’s probably a good thing as someone said our winter Warfare skills are a tad rusty these days.