Commitment in Afghanistan

[Mcluhan]

Are we crazy?

15,000 Soviet troops, 100,000 Afghan fighters died in their 10-year war. Canada is sending 2,200


600,000 Soviet troops were unable to win the war in Afghanistan. But Canada is sending 2,200 soldiers there in March, to take charge. Are we crazy?

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20060216205036766

Gone mad. That's the upside side. We're getting deeper into a conflict that is going to widen. We are picking a fight with Afghani tribesmen in a country that defeated Russia and has now rolled back over to the Drug Lords. Our forces are in a war one more time controlled by a foreign power's central command. Furthermore, the war is optional at this point. At the same time we have a brassy new leader trying to build political capital through a hawkish stance, drum beating and chest pounding. Running away, is not the Canadian Way he proclaims. Well, let's remind the Prime Minister neither are optional wars.

There’s no clear enemy in this situation. Bin Laden is a ghost. Al Qaeda is a political movement which has fractured into hundreds of parts and it’s theme, of anti-americanism has been adopted by radical parties entrenched in many countries, Philippines, as just one example. This is not going to go away. The line is being drawn increasingly deeper in the sand. Iraq is about to blow, and that will catalyse something, probably a war with Iran, which by the way, is right next door to the Afghani tribesmen we are pissing off. This will be a war without an end, at some point, probably soon, no longer optional. Once it winds up, there will be no way out.

 

[maxweber]

Last Exit to Brooklyn?

But the warlords are our allies, aren't they? The entire mission is to establish a government of "anyone but the taliban"..

MW

 

[someone]

15,000 Soviet troops, 100,000 Afghan fighters died in their 10-year war. Canada is sending 2,200


600,000 Soviet troops were unable to win the war in Afghanistan. But Canada is sending 2,200 soldiers there in March, to take charge. Are we crazy?

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20060216205036766

This is a silly comparison. The Soviets had an army of occupation. They were trying to keep the country as a satellite state. The NATO mission is to try to assist a dysfunctional state repair itself. Unless the mission is successful, Afghanistan will return to its pre 9/11 condition. Dysfunctional states that can serve as training camps for terrorists are in no ones interest.

Whether or not the mission will be successful, time will tell. However, let’s at least keep the comparisons realistic.

 

[red]

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.

 

[slowpoke]

Prior to 9/11, I remember reading about how traumatic it was for Afghans to find themselves under Taliban rule once the Soviets had departed. Maybe the Taliban stomped out the opium trade but they also dragged females back a few centuries and generally pissed everyone off with their endless restrictions. If the Canadians are seen to be helping modernize and rebuild, I think they should have the support of the general population as long as we are not seen as permanent occupiers. If the Soviets were viewed as unwelcome invaders, we should be able to present a much more benevolent profile and appeal to the Afghan population. In theory.

 

[onthebottom]

So far OTB’s predictions on Canadian public opinion seem to be correct. I’m still pessimistic about future support but it is my nature to be pessimistic:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060314.wxharperpoll14/BNStory/National/home

Nothing pisses-off my teenage daughter more than me being right all the time

OTB

 

[slowpoke]

Good general overview of Afghanistan:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/index.html

..."Afghanistan's economy is growing like gangbusters. Problem is, more than a quarter century of war and an attempt by the Taliban to isolate the country from modern influences has left the economy in ruins.

A United Nations report in February 2005, concluded that Afghanistan remains one of the world's least developed countries. It ranked 173rd out of 178 countries surveyed – beating five states in sub-Saharan Africa.

Out of every 1,000 babies born in Afghanistan, 142 die before reaching one year of age. A woman dies in pregnancy every 30 minutes. Overall life expectancy is estimated at just under 42.5 years."....


So why shouldn't we try to help the 6th poorest country on earth? We should be lending aid and assistance to all desperately poor countries that ask for help.

 

[rogerstaubach]

So why shouldn't we try to help the 6th poorest country on earth? We should be lending aid and assistance to all desperately poor countries that ask for help.

IMHO, alot of the disagreement within the Canadian population about the mission in Afghanistan is predicated by the perception that it amounts to "aiding and abetting" Bush's "mission". Sad, how Canadians cannot recognize a "just mission" because of their perceptions of Bush.

 

[slowpoke]

IMHO, alot of the disagreement within the Canadian population about the mission in Afghanistan is predicated by the perception that it amounts to "aiding and abetting" Bush's "mission". Sad, how Canadians cannot recognize a "just mission" because of their perceptions of Bush.

I think Canadians are generally ambivalent towards Afghanistan. It is seen as a remote hotbed of Islamic fervour with little strategic importance. We could lose a lot of Canadian lives over there and receive almost nothing in return. If it weren't for the Soviet invasion and then 9/11, many of us would have gone through life having never once even thought about the place.

And if that Eric Margolis article is correct, we Canadians are operating under the overall command of the US. Thanks to Mcluhan for finding this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis20.html

..."Canadians are not peacekeeping in Kandahar: There is no peace to keep. They are there to help impose U.S. rule over Afghanistan, and safeguard routes for planned oil pipelines.

Canadian soldiers are on a war-fighting mission, auxiliaries in the U.S.-led military occupation of Afghanistan. In the southern heartland of the nation's largest tribe, the famously warlike and xenophobic Pashtun, U.S. forces and their allies are seen as foreign occupiers and enemies of Islam. Pashtun are slow to act but ferocious, and they never forget a wrong."...

I'm not sure if Margolis is accurate when he labels Canada's contribution as part of a US-led occupation. If so, you can count on Canadians to be underwhelmed by the whole prospect. This occupation will only be popular with Canadians if it is packaged as Canada having a significant and beneficial role in an international joint force there to help Afghanistan get back on its feet and to remove those pesky Taliban. If this turns out to be a US occupation in disguise, watch that Canadian support evaporate.

 

[someone]

I'm not sure if Margolis is accurate when he labels Canada's contribution as part of a US-led occupation.

Only because the handover to NATO command has been delayed due, in part, to delays in troop deployments from countries like Holland. The plan is to make it a NATO led mission.

 

[slowpoke]

Only because the handover to NATO command has been delayed due, in part, to delays in troop deployments from countries like Holland. The plan is to make it a NATO led mission.

Well I'm glad to hear that. Thanks for your insight. Too bad Margolis neglected to include that little tidbit in his article. The problems I see with this mission is Canada's unwillingness or inability to properly inform Canadians about what exactly is happening. Canadians are getting killed out there and I've got to hear about this NATO delay on an obscure pussy board like this. I've been generally monitoring the Globe and Mail and CBC etc but I didn't see anything about this. Maybe it was just a fluke but I doubt it. Now that you've twigged my curiosity, I Googled up this story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4623266.stm

"Afghanistan troops delay concern

UK troops in Afghanistan
A delay in deciding the number of UK troops to be sent to Afghanistan could make it difficult to "build democracy" there, a leading Conservative has said.
James Arbuthnot, chairman of the defence select committee, said soldiers faced "very difficult circumstances".

The UK takes control of Nato forces in Afghanistan in May, with troops due to oversee reconstruction efforts.

One reason for a delay is a suggestion the Dutch government may go back on its offer to send 1,200 troops.

'Rule of law'

Mr Arbuthnot told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The question is, will there be enough troops to carry out, in very difficult terrain, against very difficult circumstances, even that amount of work?

"Will it be possible, given the surrounding circumstances in Afghanistan, to build democracy in an area which is overrun by warlords and where the rule of law is, as the Ministry of Defence official said [on Tuesday], rudimentary?"

Tony Blair has pledged to send 3,000 more troops to Afghanistan, most for Helmand province in the south, where the Taleban and drug traffickers are active.

Nato's International Security Assistance Force mission currently numbers about 9,200 troops, including 850 Britons."



WTF is this about the UK taking control of NATO forces in May? That's almost as bad as the US taking control! Why does any one nation have to be in control? This is a joint NATO effort so it should be a joint NATO command. I thought we had control of the Kandahar / Southern Afghanistan region.

 

[assoholic]

...to the average Pashstun Nato is an occuppier in his country.
They will never quit fighting.
Without outside help it would be hard to imagine that it could reach the kinds of resistance they acheived verse the Russians.
They do share a border with Iran though.
But there will be roadside bombs going off for the next 1000 years.

 

[slowpoke]

...to the average Pashstun Nato is an occuppier in his country.
They will never quit fighting.
Without outside help it would be hard to imagine that it could reach the kinds of resistance they acheived verse the Russians.
They do share a border with Iran though.
But there will be roadside bombs going off for the next 1000 years.

I view Afghanistan in much the same light as Rwanda or Darfur - places where there is just so much unnecessary suffering that there is simply no question that somebody must step up and try to help. If we are honestly trying to help out in Afghanistan with no ulterior motives or hidden agendas, I hope we will eventually gain the support of the average Afghan citizen. If not, we will at least have gained valuable military experience fighting Afghan guerrillas and rebuilding infrastructure. But this has to be explained to Canadians. We can't just sit here on the sidelines, forever bitching about the Americans. That is getting pretty old so it is time for a positive Canadian alternative. We are awash in prosperity and technical ability at a time when the Americans are having yet another bad hair decade. We have also been neglecting our military for so long that we now have to either shit or get off the pot.

 

[assoholic]

The key in the Margolis article is the Afghans sooner or later are gonna figure out the Canadians dont have that Air support.
Those forward observation outposts are isolated. When an American one gets attacked within 2-3 minutes there is air support that the Afghans cannot counter. If they are there, there dead.
Soon it will be a Nato mission. US air support, Nato troops.
It would be optimistic to say the least to expect the same kind of co-ordination amongs soldiers from different countries. armies.
Truth is outside of Kabul, the Warlords run the country. Amd some of them are getting rich.
90 % of the country is outside our control.
Iraq escalated incredibly quickly but Afghanistan is doing a slow broil, an when the lid pops off, there is gonna be one big mess.

 

[someone]

The key in the Margolis article is the Afghans sooner or later are gonna figure out the Canadians dont have that Air support.
Those forward observation outposts are isolated. When an American one gets attacked within 2-3 minutes there is air support that the Afghans cannot counter. If they are there, there dead.
Soon it will be a Nato mission. US air support, Nato troops.
It would be optimistic to say the least to expect the same kind of co-ordination amongs soldiers from different countries. armies.
Truth is outside of Kabul, the Warlords run the country. Amd some of them are getting rich.
90 % of the country is outside our control.
Iraq escalated incredibly quickly but Afghanistan is doing a slow broil, an when the lid pops off, there is gonna be one big mess.

NATO is all about coordination. I could give you several examples. One involves the NATO challenge drill (sentries use it) I learnt in the military. The idea was to get the steps learnt so well that as long as both parties knew the password, it was technically not even necessary to speak the same language. Admittedly, my experience was in the days when Canada still had troops in Europe and a very NATO focus. Furthermore, there will be a lot of non NATO countries taking part in the operations. Still, I really can’t see the problem of coordinating air support.

Edit: On Slowpoke's link I found another link that discusses the delay in the NATO take over. Some may be find it interesting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4521318.stm

 

[rogerstaubach]

I'm not sure if Margolis is accurate when he labels Canada's contribution as part of a US-led occupation.

This is what Margolis would want us to believe even though this is a Nato mission with which the Canadian deployment is involved with. Just look at the date of Margolis' "report", Mar 6/2006, which is much, much later than the establishment of the fact that is Nato-led mission with which Canada is attached to. So why, the willful deceit in his "report"? Read his other reports, and the "agendized reporting" employed Margolis becomes quite clear.

 

[scroll99]

Canadian troops fire on Afghan car, one killed

Canadian troops fire on Afghan car, one killed
Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:48 AM EST7


KABUL (Reuters) - Canadian forces on patrol in Afghanistan opened fire on a vehicle, apparently in the belief it was a suicide bomb attempt, killing a passenger, a Canadian forces spokeswoman said on Wednesday.

An investigation had been launched by an independent Canadian service into the shooting in Kandahar city in the Afghan south late on Tuesday, said the spokeswoman, Captain Julie Roberge.

"A man was shot yesterday while Canadian forces were doing a routine patrol .... he died this morning in hospital," Roberge said.

"This is being investigated, we take it very seriously," she said.

Canada has 2,300 soldiers in Kandahar, where it commands a multinational task force.

Taliban insurgents and their militants allies have stepped up attacks in recent months in a bid to drive out foreign forces and defeat the Western-backed government.

Suicide bomb attacks have soared with at least 12 this year, compared with 17 last year.

A Canadian diplomat was killed and three Canadian soldiers wounded in a suicide attack in Kandahar in January.

Roberge said because of the danger of suicide car bombs, drivers are told to keep clear from Canadian convoys and patrols.

The investigation would determine if the driver ignored warnings to stay away or if the firing was no warranted, she said.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a surprise visit to Kandahar on Monday to rally the troops and shore up support at home for the Afghan mission.

Ten Canadian soldiers and the diplomat have been killed and 33 soldiers wounded since Canada first deployed soldiers in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks.

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/ne...159041_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-AFGHAN-VIOLENCE-COL.XML

 

[scroll99]

Canadian soldier kills passenger in Afghanistan

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/15/canada.afghan/

 

[scroll99]

Prepare for long Afghan stay: Powell

Tells Canada not to set timeline for pulling out

Mar. 15, 2006. 09:31 PM
FROM CANADIAN PRESS

Canadians should prepare for "an extended" military campaign in Afghanistan and reject any impulse to set a timeline to withdraw its troops, former U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell said Wednesday.

"We all should be prepared for something that's going to be extended," Powell said of the need for coalition forces to remain steadfast in their commitment to the war-torn region.

"I think it would not be the appropriate course of action now to put a time limit on it, because it's situational."

The ability of Afghan forces to improve their capabilities to police the region, political developments in the country, and the tenacity of the enemy will determine how long troops are needed, said Powell.

"You have to plan against the situation on the ground," Powell warned an audience of some 2,600 people in Toronto following a speech on Canadian-U.S. relations.

"I hope Canada will look at it in that way and not impose some artificial timeline that doesn't bear a relationship to reality."

Powell, a career soldier and a former chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the audience that doesn't mean Canada will be expected to maintain its current 2,200-strong contingent indefinitely.

"It need not be at the same level as it is now. I wouldn't suggest that 2,200 Canadians have to be there for 10 years, five years," he said.

Coalition members will also take shifts in leading the security contingent in the region, said Powell.

"We must stand with the Afghan people," he said. "It is a noble purpose; it is worthy."

Canadian troops took over the front lines of the volatile southern province of Kandahar from their American allies last month.

Last week, hundreds of Canadian troops launched a major operation deep into insurgent territory where local authorities fear to tread and Canadians have already come under attack.

Six U.S. soldiers and 19 Afghans died in operations in the area last year.

Three Canadians soldiers have been killed and 25 injured in a string of accidents, roadside bombs and suicide attacks this year.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper wrapped up a surprise visit to the Canadian troops in Afghanistan on Tuesday. The high-security trip was aimed at boosting military morale, as well as support for the mission back home.

Before Powell's speech, about a dozen protesters picketed the downtown venue, claiming that the former U.S. secretary of state is a war criminal responsible for some 100,000 deaths in Iraq since the U.S. invaded in 2003.

Two protesters dressed like prisoners, in orange jumpsuits and with black sacks draped over heads.

The group cited a 2004 report from U.S. Democrats that claims Powell made 50 misleading statements about the threat Iraq posed in the lead up to the war.

"We're calling on Toronto police and the attorney general to arrest him as a war criminal," said Dylan Penner, executive director of ACT for the Earth.

Powell entered the Toronto venue without incident.

As former chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, Powell led the Bush administration argument at the United Nations for a military attack to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...990&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

 

[slowpoke]

NATO is all about coordination. I could give you several examples. One involves the NATO challenge drill (sentries use it) I learnt in the military. The idea was to get the steps learnt so well that as long as both parties knew the password, it was technically not even necessary to speak the same language. Admittedly, my experience was in the days when Canada still had troops in Europe and a very NATO focus. Furthermore, there will be a lot of non NATO countries taking part in the operations. Still, I really can’t see the problem of coordinating air support.

Edit: On Slowpoke's link I found another link that discusses the delay in the NATO take over. Some may be find it interesting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4521318.stm

Thanks for that link though it isn't very encouraging. Besides the US, we're the only ones who've delivered the level of support we promised. Meanwhile, Britain will have the lead role (???) and overall support for this operation is fading fast. Maybe Canada's example will shame the others into coming along for the ride. If not ..... guess what? This will revert back to a mainly US show with Canada riding shotgun and NATO doing a pretty good impersonation of the UN. Fuck!!!