• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Tories planning on Afghanistan extension: NDP

darmil

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070219/cda_afghanistan_070219/20070219?hub=TopStories

Tories planning on Afghanistan extension: NDP

Updated Mon. Feb. 19 2007 5:14 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

The NDP has released a document indicating the Conservative government is planning to keep Canadian troops in Afghanistan until at least May 2011.

Dawn Black, the party's defence critic, obtained the document through the federal access to information law.

The document lays out troop and command rotations for Joint Task Force Afghanistan.

"I think that's serious planning, and if that's the case, it should come before the House of Commons," Black told reporters after Parliament's question period on Monday.

In the spring of 2006, Black noted the Conservatives had a short period of debate before holding a vote on extending the current mission to 2009.

"If plans are afoot to extend it to 2011, that deserves to have a very thorough, high-level, informed debate within Parliament before a decision is made."

In question period, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said: "I have answered this question a number of times. The member is confusing the military internal plan which is based upon the Afghanistan compact and government direction. If she reads the plan in detail, she will notice that the military acknowledge that they are committed to the end of February 2009, however, they plan beyond those dates because the Afghan compact goes until 2011."

"The government has said that we are committed to the end of February 2009. No further decision has been made. The government, when it finds it appropriate, will make the decision on what happens if and when the events occur after 2009," he added.

The document indicates that Canada's three largest regiments -- the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI), the Petawawa, Ont.-based Royal Canadian Regiment and the Val Cartier, Que.-based Royal 22nd Regiment (Van Doos) -- will rotate through Afghanistan two more times by 2011.

PPLCI has served two tours so far in southern Afghanistan.

The Royal Canadian Regiment just finished a rotation, and the Van Doos have just started one.

"There's been no sign-off on that, but at the very least, the military is putting together a plan to keep Canada's soldiers in Afghanistan through 2011," CTV's David Akin told Newsnet.
 
A

aesop081

Guest
I dont see what the issue is.  It is the military's job to have plans in case the mandate is extended.  What does the NDP expect us to do....make plans at the last minute when it is too late ?

Idiots  ::)
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
121
Points
710
Land sake's alive--the CF just can't quit planning in case some government asks them to do something.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/57701.0.html

Let's just expose all planning done anywhere in the government and see what can be made of it politically.

Mark
Ottawa
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,117
Points
1,260
MarkOttawa said:
Land sake's alive--the CF just can't quit planning in case some government asks them to do something.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/57701.0.html
Let's just expose all planning done anywhere in the government and see what can be made of it politically.

To be honest, I'm surprised more reporters don't choose to take advantage of picking such relatively low hanging fruit - the stuff is available for cheap via ATIP (as long as you can wait for a bit), the bureaucrats do all the homework in pretty good detail, and the reporter doesn't have to do a lot of digging once the CD or envelope gets to him/her, and s/he can pick/choose the fragment that can get the most journalistic bang.  Context?  Heck, in a perfect world, that's the follow-up longer feature piece - maybe.

But I'm not being bitter, am I?  ;D
 

onecat

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
cdnaviator said:
I dont see what the issue is.  It is the military's job to have plans in case the mandate is extended.  What does the NDP expect us to do....make plans at the last minute when it is too late ?

Idiots  ::)


Of course, we all know the evil conservative want nothing more than to sink canada endless wars....that can only be stopped if you vote for jack.
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,117
Points
1,260
Apparently, cdnavigator, your're more correct than we might have first guessed about the NDP's modus operendi - check out the highlighted bits....

Tours of duty plotted until 2011
Military says proposed rotations are just part of prudent planning

Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star, 20 Feb 07
Article Link

OTTAWA–Canada's military has planned troop rotations to Afghanistan through to 2011 – two years past the current commitment, prompting opposition questions about whether the federal Conservatives intend to extend the mission.

But military planners insist no decisions have been made and say they're just doing some blue-sky thinking to organize their military manpower.

"The government has been pretty clear about the 2009 mandate and we are simply doing our bit as prudent planners," said Maj. Daryl Morrell, an army spokesperson.

"We go where the government tells us to go and we are there for how long they tell us to be there."

Still, the proposed rotations, planned past May 2011, prompted questions from federal New Democrats yesterday who obtained the details in army documents released under access-to-information legislation.

"It is hard to see where civilian oversight is taking place at DND. How can the military plan rotations that Parliament has not approved?" New Democrat MP Dawn Black (New Westminster-Coquitlam) asked in question period.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said the Conservative government has made no plans to extend the mission past 2009.

"No further decision has been made. The government, when it finds it appropriate, will make the decision on what happens if and when the events occur after 2009," he told the House of Commons.

The federal Conservatives extended the mission once by two years to February 2009 – a decision narrowly endorsed by Parliament last May.

But the defence department has prepared contingency plans for a mission beyond that date, according to documents that detail proposed rotations for troop and command contingents for Joint Task Force Afghanistan.

If the mission is extended past February 2009, the 2nd Battalion, Royal 22e Régiment, based in Quebec City, would be deployed. They would be followed by the 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, from Edmonton in August 2009.

Those troops would be replaced by 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, from CFB Petawawa in February 2010. The 1st Battalion, Royal 22e Régiment, also from Quebec City, would head over in August 2010 on a deployment to end sometime after May 2011.

Military leaders have warned that Afghanistan will need foreign military and development help long past Canada's 2009 commitment.

"If we are extending it or if there are plans to consider extending it, that debate should happen within the House of Commons in a substantive way," Black said, "so that Canadians and military families and the Canadian Forces themselves understand what's being talked about and what the potential is."

The army plans are no indication those troops will actually be deployed, Morrell said in an interview yesterday. "This is part of the army having forces ready to deploy wherever the government tells us ... ," he said yesterday in an interview. "It takes a while to train these guys ... We have to be prepared to react to government direction."

If the plans become reality, that would break a pledge military and political leaders made to have troops serve only one Afghan tour.

 

armyvern

Army.ca Myth
Mentor
Reaction score
34
Points
530
Clearly,

The NDP would rather have us not contingency plan. That way, if the mission IS extended by the government of the day in 2009, they'll have something new to keep whining about.

The way they'd apparently like to see it done is no planning, no prep, no financial forecasts. Then at the end of 2009 if an extension happens, and the CF has to pull 2500 troops out of our collective butts with no planning, prep and training for those soldiers for their deployment, the NDP can again "support their troops."

They'll do that by yelling and screaming about how the government is deploying all these 'extended mission' personnel with no training, no notice and at the last minute. You see things like this justify their existance. If they weren't whining about the military somehow they just wouldn't be the NDP.
 

observor 69

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3
Points
430
Iraq dogs Afghan mission
Feb 20, 2007 04:30 AM
James Travers

OTTAWA - Here's a puzzler with life, death and election consequences. Question: What's more threatening to Canada's Kandahar mission than the expected Taliban spring offensive? Answer: Confusing the war in Afghanistan with the war in Iraq.

The reason rests squarely on modern reality. Troops sent abroad must constantly look over their shoulders at public opinion at home.

Wars fought by democracies are struggles for not one but two sets of hearts and minds. Soldiers can't beat the formidable odds against them without convincing skeptical voters along with suspicious locals that the interlopers are there to help.

Iraq is an instructive example. Even in the embarrassing absence of weapons of mass destruction, toppling Saddam Hussein could have justified the misadventure if the U.S. hadn't so quickly morphed from solution to problem.

From the careless early failure to provide Iraqis with security and life's basics to the grotesque Abu Ghraib abuses and Saddam execution, the Bush administration consistently alienated its twin constituencies. Predictably, Iraqis turned to sectarian leaders for protection and Americans turned first against the war and then against George W. Bush.

More to follow: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/183408

 

armyvern

Army.ca Myth
Mentor
Reaction score
34
Points
530
Baden  Guy said:
Iraq dogs Afghan mission
Feb 20, 2007 04:30 AM
James Travers

OTTAWA - Here's a puzzler with life, death and election consequences. Question: What's more threatening to Canada's Kandahar mission than the expected Taliban spring offensive? Answer: Confusing the war in Afghanistan with the war in Iraq....

The reason rests squarely on modern reality. Troops sent abroad must constantly look over their shoulders at public opinion at home....

Interesting that public opinion is vastly influenced by the Main Stream Media and their misleading articles/statements such as the one below from this exact same article:

From the careless early failure to provide Iraqis with security and life's basics to the grotesque Abu Ghraib abuses and Saddam execution, the Bush administration consistently alienated its twin constituencies. Predictably, Iraqis turned to sectarian leaders for protection and Americans turned first against the war and then against George W. Bush.

Hmmm, interestingly enough (my emphasis above) the US actually tried to stop the IRAQI judicial system from proceeding with this execution. This article would lead one to perceive that it was the US who executed Mr. Hussein and that is absolutely false.

Yep, it's always the governments fault or failure/shortcomings of the military. When does the MSM start taking credit for their role in this with the inaccurate spins and outright fallacies which some of them unabashedly print and seem to be AOK?
 

observor 69

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3
Points
430
Chawki Bensalem said:
I don't get it, are you saying that people here confuse our deployment in A-stan with Iraq ???

I am saying the writer of the article, James Travers, has an interesting viewpoint that is useful for "people here" to be aware of.
 

observor 69

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3
Points
430
The Librarian said:
Hmmm, interestingly enough (my emphasis above) the US actually tried to stop the IRAQI judicial system from proceeding with this execution. This article would lead one to perceive that it was the US who executed Mr. Hussein and that is absolutely false.

Agreed Vern that the US authorities in Iraq "tried" to stop the execution. But I think Mr.Travers point is that they didn't and that is just seen by the public, US and Canada , as another mission failure.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
813
Points
1,060
Baden  Guy said:
Agreed Vern that the US authorities in Iraq "tried" to stop the execution. But I think Mr.Travers point is that they didn't and that is just seen by the public, US and Canada , as another mission failure.

It should read as "seen by SOME of the public, US and Canada, as another mission failure."

I don't find his execution as a mission failure. I percieve it as a mission success.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
1,057
Points
1,160
Baden  Guy said:
... I think Mr.Travers point is that they didn't and that is just seen by the public, US and Canada , as another mission failure.

I agree; motive and ‘try’ don’t matter much in the hindsight.

The perception is that America stumbled into the wrong war for the wrong reasons and, after a series of grotesque military, administrative and diplomatic blunders, America will be defeated, again, à la Viet Nam 30+ years ago.

The perception may be unfair and wrong and it may have been created, from the get go, by the media, but, for a huge majority of people, all over the world - including in North America, perception = reality.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
121
Points
710
"It is hard to see where civilian oversight is taking place at DND. How can the military plan rotations that Parliament has not approved?" New Democrat MP Dawn Black (New Westminster-Coquitlam) asked in question period.

Just like the planning for Croatia/BH, Kosovo, East Timor, Eritrea/Ethiopia, Afstan in 2001, 2003 and Grizzlies/Darfur (yes Ms. Black we are invovlved in Sudan) that was done without approval by Parliament?  Does she want every bit of CF planning done for every possible force deployment voted on by the House of Commons? Does she want to bring Parliament to an even more grinding halt?  Why do our media not question such absurd statements?  But I guess we know the answer to the last question.

Mark
Ottawa
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
121
Points
710
And why cannot MND O'Connor do a better job in the House?  He almost invariably appears to be avoiding issues or giving incomplete answers that really do not explaing what the government and CF are doing, and why.

Mark
Ottawa
 
A

aesop081

Guest
milnewstbay said:
Apparently, cdnavigator, your're more ..........


Ok....that does it........you're the 3rd one this week !!

I changed my bloody name so you people can stop calling me a freakin' navigator

:mad:
 

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
20
Points
380
CDN Aviator said:
Ok....that does it........you're the 3rd one this week !!

I changed my bloody name so you people can stop calling me a freakin' navigator

:mad:

Is that the same thing as not being able to walk and chew bubble gum?
 

NL_engineer

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Chawki Bensalem said:
I don't get it, are you saying that people here confuse our deployment in A-stan with Iraq ???
In shot YES

There are many people out there that keep saying that we should not be in Iraq.  When politely informed that we are not in Iraq but Afghanistan: they ether call them both the same  ::) or claim Government conspiracy ::) and some will walk away more informed  ;D.
 
Top