MarkOttawa said:
Kirkhill: It's the (Christian) Serbs, not the (Muslim) Kosovars, who have a passionate attachment to Kosovo Polje
:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-322736/Battle-of-Kosovo
Mark
Ottawa
Thanks for the correction Mark. Memory is a pretty weak reed these days.
By the way, about your response to my comments on the priorities of the panel, I take it that most folks here and that includes you and GAP understand the role combat plays in policy. My point is that the Public has been brought to believe that the choice is between any of the proposed options and combat. Most of the proposed options cannot occur in an insecure environment
I have asked the panel to examine four main options for the future of the Afghanistan mission, although they may consider others.
Option one is to continue training the Afghan army and police with the goal of creating self-sufficient indigenous security forces in Kandahar province so Canadian troops can start withdrawing in February 2009.
Option two is to focus on reconstruction in Kandahar, which would require some other country or countries to take over our security role.
Option three is to shift Canadian security and reconstruction efforts to another region of Afghanistan.
And option four is to withdraw all Canadian military forces after February 2009 except a small contingent to provide security for our remaining aid workers and diplomats.
Option one requires having the Afghans in a position to stand up and take over the security role in Kandahar by 2009. If they can't do it then the Canadians have to stay.
Or, if the Canadians don't stay then some other country has to take up the slack - and that is option two.
Or, if the other countries don't take up the slack the Taliban leadership wins and with new confidence, new resources and a population with shattered confidence, expands operations .
In which case, if Canada adopts option 3 then the security mission will follow it to another part of Afghanistan because the Taliban will know the Canadians are weak and can be manipulated and will focus their efforts on them. At the same time the locals will know that the Canadians abandoned the folks in Kandahar, leaving nothing to show for the misery the civilians endured during the fighting and leaving the Taliban in charge to effect reprisals. The locals in Canada's new sector will not co-operate with the Canadians, will not point out Taliban, will not point out mines, will not permit schools and will allow larger portions of their people to shoot at Canadians.
As well everybody else supplying security will be having a hotter time because of the emboldened Taliban and will have less forces available to hold/retake Kandahar after Canada leaves.
Option four means that it had better be a VERY small contingent of diplomats and aid workers because the need to supply security for those left will be even greater than it is now.
Of course I suppose we could expect those NGO's that brayed loudly about being confused with the military to step back into military-free Kandahar and start delivering rice with choruses of Koombayah.
I'm hoping that this panel has the sense to come to these conclusions ;D and the credibility to sell them to the public.
Edit: Actually given the polling numbers on Harper's personal support, the direction of the country generally and even the Afghan mission in particular, I don't think that this panel has to work very hard to bolster support on the subject. I think this is less about trying to convince an unconvinced public (in the sense of majority support) than it is to stop a slow bleed into potentially damaging political territory. I think Harper, and the opposition, knows that he could actually win an "Afghanistan Election" (and in the resulting up tick most of the rest of the public would likely get in line) with 50% support. The Liberals have such an election as their greatest fear. The Bloc figure it is one of the few ways that they might be able to tackle the Tories in Quebec AND carve up the remains of the Liberal Party locally - but even they are vulnerable because not all independently minded Quebecers are socialists. And there's a logical non-sequitur - an independent socialist. As to the NDP, speaking of socialists, their position is of longstanding and unchanging. The Comintern aka Communist International aka The Third International came into being because The Second International, or the Socialist International couldn't stop World War I by mobilizing the proletariat against their governments. They split along national lines. (The Socialist International subsequently reformed after WW2 and the Comintern was disbanded. All good Progressive Leaders regularly meet for coffee and doughnuts. Conservative Leaders aren't informed of the next meeting's time and place - but I digress).
