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

Afghanistan: Why we should be there (or not), how to conduct the mission (or not) & when to leave

Very good background paper by Library of Parliament, well worth a look:

Canadian Policy Towards Afghanistan to 2011 and Beyond: Issues, Prospects, Options
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2010-26-e.pdf

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
Very good background paper by Library of Parliament, well worth a look:

Canadian Policy Towards Afghanistan to 2011 and Beyond: Issues, Prospects, Options
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2010-26-e.pdf

Mark
Ottawa


I hit my first problem in the Executive Summary, on page iii, in the 2nd paragraph which begins “One of Afghanistan's biggest challenges is to move towards democratic governance.”

I suppose that helping Afghanistan to move towards democratic governance is an acceptable goal so long as we don't expect the movement to be swift, sure or sustained. Afghanistan is unlikely to become a functioning liberal democracy (the kind 99.99% of Canadians mean when they say “democracy”) in the lifespan of anyone reading this.

There are several good reasons to have gone to Afghanistan and to stay in Afghanistan: bringing democracy to the Afghans is not amongst them. A modicum of personal, individual safety? Yes. Some sense of security? Yes. A wee bit more equality than Pashtunwali traditionally provides? Yes. But “freedom” or “democracy?” No. Sorry that's a mug's game and anyone who thinks we can do either “freedom” (freedom from what, freedom to do what?) or “democracy” needs to move to Washington where some not very smart people actually believe in all that.
 
How the Taliban came back at Kandahar--this at first glance looks like non-governmental intelligence of a pretty high order (usual copyright disclaimer):

Executive Summary
The Battle for Afghanistan
Militancy and Conflict in Kandahar

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/the_battle_for_afghanistan

By Anand Gopal
November 9, 2010 | New America Foundation

kandahar.jpg


Go to ‘Battle for Afghanistan’ home
http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/the_battle_for_afghanistan_militancy_and_conflict

As Afghanistan’s cultural and political heartland, Kandahar is a province of key strategic importance for foreign forces, the Afghan government, and the insurgency. A sizable chunk of the Taliban’s senior leadership hails from the province, and the cultural and political dynamics of rural Kandahar shape aspects of the movement’s character to this day.

This study attempts to understand the Taliban of Kandahar by looking at the factors that spurred their rise and the networks and structures through which they operate. The findings include:

    * The Taliban’s resurgence in Kandahar post-2001 was not inevitable or preordained. The Taliban—from senior leadership levels down to the rank and file—by and large surrendered to the new government and retired to their homes. But in the early years after 2001, there was a lack of a genuine, broad-based reconciliation process in which the Taliban leadership would be allowed to surrender in exchange for amnesty and protection from persecution. Rather, foreign forces and their proxies pursued an unrelenting drive against former regime members, driving many of them to flee to Pakistan and launch an insurgency.
    * Once the Taliban leadership decided to stand against the Afghan government and its foreign backers, they were able to take advantage of growing disillusionment in the countryside. In particular, the dominance of one particular set of tribes caused members of other, marginalized tribes to look to the insurgency as a source of protection and access to resources. The weakness of the judiciary and police forced many to turn to the Taliban’s provision of law and order, while widespread torture and abuse at the hands of pro-government strongmen eroded government support. At the same time, the heavy-handed tactics of U.S. forces turned many against the foreign presence.
    * Despite popular belief, the Taliban in Kandahar cannot easily be divided into an “ideological core” and rank-and-file fighters motivated mainly by material concerns. After 2001, most senior Taliban leaders in the province had accepted the new government, or at least rejected it but declined to fight against it. Most did not invoke the notion of jihad as an immediate reaction to the new government. Rather, only after a protracted campaign against former Taliban did many of them feel they had no place in the new state of affairs and began to see the presence of the government and foreign fighters as necessitating jihad. And after the emergence of the insurgency, there were a number of attempts by senior leaders to come to terms with the Afghan government, yet at the same time there were very few attempts to do so by rank-and-file field commanders.
    * The Taliban have developed an intricate shadow government apparatus. At the top is the shadow governor, who works closely with a body called the Military Commission. In theory, the governor directs strategy, coordinates with leadership in Pakistan, and liaises with other actors in the province, while the Military Commission adjudicates disputes and serves in an advisory role. There is also a detailed district-level apparatus, including shadow district governors and, in some districts police chiefs and district shuras.
    * Parallel to this formal structure are numerous informal networks through which the Taliban make decisions and propagate influence. Although there are detailed mechanisms in place, involving the provincial shadow apparatus, to deal with battlefield strategy or intra-Taliban disputes, many times strategic decisions or punitive actions are taken through informal means. These include cases where senior leaders in Pakistan direct operations through their network of commanders in Kandahar.
    * Contrary to popular perception, the Taliban in Kandahar do not appear to receive regular salaries. Rather, each commander is responsible for raising funds for his group, which is typically done through capturing spoils in operations or collecting (sometimes forcefully) local taxes. Some funding also comes from external sources, such as merchants in Pakistan and wealthy donors in the Persian Gulf states.
    * In addition to winning support from marginalized communities and offering law and order, the Taliban were able to gain influence through severe intimidation and widespread human rights abuses. Moreover, a brutal assassination campaign against anyone even remotely connected to the government—tribal elders, government officials, aid workers, religious clerics, and others—succeeded in widening the gap between the local communities and the government.
    * The Taliban’s rise in Kandahar after 2001 can be divided into four periods. From 2001 to 2004, the group was involved in reorganizing itself, resuscitating old networks, and forging new connections. Between 2004 and 2006, the burgeoning movement was focused on consolidating itself, while winning rank-and-file recruits outside those who had worked with the Taliban in the 1990s; it began to amass members in large numbers. A turning point came in the western part of the province in 2006, when the Taliban suffered a major battlefield loss against foreign forces in Operation Medusa [emphasis added]. This was one factor that spurred the next phase, asymmetric warfare, between 2006 and 2009. These years were marked by the increased use of suicide bombings and roadside attacks. The year 2010 marks a new phase in the struggle. While the insurgents are still relying heavily on suicide attacks and roadside bombs, foreign troops are giving unprecedented attention to the province, and violence has escalated to levels not previously seen in this war.

For the full text of this 44-page report, please click here.
http://newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/111010gopal_kandahar.pdf

Anand Gopal is an Afghanistan-based journalist. He is the coauthor of the New America Foundation’s “Battle For Pakistan” paper on militancy and conflict in North Waziristan.
http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/publications/policy/the_battle_for_pakistan_north_waziristan

Mark
Ottawa
 
Interesting question from G&M's Bill Curry, in a "Afghanistan mirroring Korea" column, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act."Will PM break his Afghan silence on Remembrance Day?"
It is already Remembrance Day in Seoul, where Prime Minister Stephen Harper is visiting to take part in two days of G20 meetings.

But before the economic talks begin Thursday, he will join top British, Australian, French and South Korean officials to mark Remembrance Day at a Korean War Memorial.

The fighting ran from 1950-1953 at the height of the Cold War. A United Nations force sided with the South to defend against better-armed communists in the Soviet-occupied North.

The civil war - which even to this day is only at a ceasefire - could have been much worse. There were serious concerns, including from Canadians at the time, that the tactics and rhetoric of U.S. General Douglas MacArthur would trigger a third world war should China intervene on behalf of the North.

Canada contributed about 22,000 soldiers, as well as air and sea support. More than 516 Canadians died in the Korean War. Throughout the 60th anniversary, the Korean government has posted videos and posters across the country that specifically single out Canada's contribution for thanks.

Yet Canada's large contribution came only after pressure from the Americans. Initially, Canada only pledged three destroyers and an air-transport squadron. Opposition parties also pressured prime minister Louis St. Laurent to expand Canada's contribution.

One question hanging over the event is when Mr. Harper will break his silence on a modern day decision of Canadian troop deployment in response to U.S. pressure.

Mr. Harper has yet to comment on his government's decision to consider leaving troops in Afghanistan beyond the planned 2011 pull-out date to help train the Afghan army. The move was announced by Defence Minister Peter MacKay on Sunday and confirmed by Mr. Harper's spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, this week.

Critics complain that leaving troops behind, even in a training capacity, would be a complete reversal of clear comments made by Mr. Harper himself, as recently as this year, ruling out any kind of Canadian military presence in Afghanistan beyond 2011.

Yet Mr. Harper has been quiet on the issue. The Prime Minister did not take any questions [http://communities.canada.com/shareit/blogs/politics/archive/2010/11/09/harper-kicks-off-listening-tour-by-refusing-to-take-questions.aspx] at a Winnipeg event Tuesday, even though it was to announce a cross-Canada listening tour in advance of the 2011 budget.

The team of Ottawa-based reporters travelling with the Prime Minister to the G20 summit were kept at the airport while Mr. Harper made the stop in Winnipeg, where a federal by-election is under way.

So far, Mr. Harper's team has yet to schedule a question and answer session with reporters at the G20. The Prime Minister will have to decide soon whether he will explain Canada's new position on Afghanistan on Remembrance Day.
My guess:  if the PM's been reluctant to say anything on this politically touchy subject, I don't think he's going to use a day to remember the sacrifices of the fallen for this kind of political announcement.
 
MarkOttawa said:
Autres temps, autres moeurs--et autres principes.

Mark
Ottawa
Could be....

Well, it seems if the PM's going to announce a mission extension on Remembrance Day, he didn't do it during his speech in Korea, according to the Canadian Press as of this posting:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper laid a wreath at a Korean War Memorial on Thursday in honour of the Canadian soldiers who fought in the Korean war of 1950-53.

In Seoul for the G20 summit, Harper attended a moving Remembrance Day ceremony before the day's meetings commenced, accompanied by British Prime Minister David Cameron and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Almost 27,000 Canadian troops participated in the war, fighting alongside South Koreans, Americans and other allies to push back communist forces in the North.

More than 500 Canadians lost their lives in the conflict, and about 1,200 were wounded or injured.

Another 7,000 Canadian troops stayed behind after the war to maintain a ceasefire.

Harper also honoured the Canadian troops who have served in hotspots around the world today.

"Today I also want to pay tribute to our brave men and women in uniform who continue the proud tradition of defending peace and freedom around the globe in places such as Afghanistan and Haiti," the prime minister said ....

Edited to add latest from CTV.ca - He didn't say it in the speech, but he apparently said "it's not impossible" on the phone to CTV:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has confirmed that the federal government is considering a new training mission for Canadian troops that would see an unknown number of them remain in Afghanistan until 2014.

Speaking from Seoul, South Korea, ahead of the G20 meeting, Harper told CTV News that he's "looking at the 2011 to 2014 period" for the new mission.

If the government chooses to act on the proposal, Canadian forces would take up a training role in the war-torn country once its combat troops return home.

"As you know we've been in Afghanistan for a very long time," Harper said in a phone interview Wednesday evening.

"We do want to make sure that as we leave, what we leave behind is a situation that will ensure that the sacrifices that Canadians have made… are appropriately honoured," he said.

"I think that will require some additional training," he added. "It cannot involve any more combat." ....
Now that it's up the flagpole, the public temperature monitoring begins....
 
milnews.ca said:
My guess:  if the PM's been reluctant to say anything on this politically touchy subject, I don't think he's going to use a day to remember the sacrifices of the fallen for this kind of political announcement.
I was wrong - this, from the Canadian Press:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he decided with some "reluctance" to reconsider his decision to pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan next year.  Speaking on the sidelines of meetings of the G20 leaders, Harper said he told his NATO allies in no uncertain terms that Canada's combat role is coming to an end.  But he said he sees merit in the argument that Afghan troops aren't ready to stand on their own, and Canada could help in their training.  "I do this with some reluctance but I think this is the best decision, when one looks at the options," he said.  "Look, I'm not going to kid you. Down deep my preference would be, would have been to see a complete end to the military mission." …. Harper said Thursday he did not succumb to pressure, but decided to reconsider based on the fact that the Afghans aren't ready for Canada to leave.  "I don't want to risk the gains that Canadian soldiers have fought for and have sacrificed in such significant numbers by pulling out too early, if we can avoid that."  Harper acknowledged he has been under pressure by NATO allies to continue in a combat role, but a training role was the most he could agree to …. "I think if we can continue a smaller mission that involves just training, I think frankly that presents minimal risks to Canada, but it helps us to ensure that the gains that we've made," Harper said.

I like the idea of doing something to keep helping Afghanistan get on its own feet to protect itself (and, hopefully, keep bad guys who'd do harm to US out of the country).

It'll be interesting to see the next few news cycles.  Now that he says "we should stay (at least a bit)", will MSM who (lately) called for a training mission now say "hey, he did the right thing?" 

Also, watch for public opinion polling in the next few days.

More on this from QMI/Sun Media, Postmedia News, the Globe & Mail, and Reuters.

 
PM plans ‘inside the wire' Afghan role while U.S. presses for riskier one
CAMPBELL CLARK From Thursday's Globe and Mail Thursday, Nov. 11, 2010
Article Link

The United States is asking Canada to take on a more robust – and risky – role after the planned 2011 pullout of combat troops from Afghanistan, including risking enemy fire outside of bases to mentor Afghan security forces in the field.

The push comes as Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to announce next week the government's new plan for Afghanistan – a plan that will likely keep Canada “inside the wire.”

But the United States wants more. The Americans are seeking greater Canadian participation – a role “outside the wire” – and are hoping for such an announcement before next week's NATO summit in Lisbon.

This poses a dilemma for the Harper government: A greater role could set off the tripwire in Canadian politics, but refusing it would mean rejecting a call for help from our biggest ally.

Ottawa is now considering a post-2011 training mission, and it could be a big one – almost 1,000 troops, including 700 to 750 troops as trainers and another 200 in support roles, a government official said this week.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay insisted Sunday the training would be “inside the wire” – on training bases, rather than in the field. But some Liberals say they're watching to see whether the plan slides toward involvement in combat operations.

The Liberals, who have for months called for a Canadian training mission after combat troops withdraw next July, would probably oppose that mentoring.

That's exactly what the United States would like Canada to do. In an interview, Ivo Daalder, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, stressed that it's up to Canadians how they might want to be involved after the 2011 deadline, but he said the United States would like Canada to take on a training mission that includes mentoring in the field.
More on link
 
Meanwhile down south the line is changing (another reason they really want us to stay is some role):

U.S. Tweaks Message on Troops in Afghanistan
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/world/asia/11military.html?ref=todayspaper

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is increasingly emphasizing the idea that the United States will have forces in Afghanistan until at least the end of 2014, a change in tone aimed at persuading the Afghans and the Taliban that there will be no significant American troop withdrawals next summer.

In a move away from President Obama’s deadline of July 2011 for the start of an American drawdown from Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all cited 2014 this week as the key date for handing over the defense of Afghanistan to the Afghans themselves. Implicit in their message, delivered at a security and diplomatic conference in Australia, was that the United States would be fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan for at least four more years.

Administration officials said the three had made loosely coordinated comments at the conference, in Melbourne, to try to convince Afghans that the United States was not walking away next summer and to warn the Taliban that aggressive operations against them would continue. Although Mr. Obama and administration officials have repeatedly said that July 2011 would be only the start of troop withdrawals, the Taliban have successfully promoted the deadline among the Afghan populace as a large-scale exit of the 100,000 United States troops now in the country...

In Australia, Mr. Gates said the Taliban would be “very surprised come August, September, October and November, when most American forces are still there, and still coming after them.”

The message shift is effectively a victory for the military [emphasis added], which has long said the July 2011 deadline undermined its mission by making Afghans reluctant to work with troops perceived to be leaving shortly...

Mark
Ottawa
 
Harper says Parliament’s okay not needed to extend Afghan mission
BILL CURRY SEOUL— Globe and Mail Update Friday, Nov. 12, 2010
Article Link

Extending Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan does not require Parliament’s approval because the new approach will focus on training, not combat, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday.

In 2008, Mr. Harper opted to seek Parliament’s support for a motion extending Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan through to July 2011, a vote the government won easily 198-77.

But this time is different, Mr. Harper answered when asked if another extension, one that is focused on training Afghan soldiers in Kabul until 2014, would require a similar vote.

“My position is if you’re going to put troops into combat, into a war situation, I do think for the sake of legitimacy, I do think the government does require the support of Parliament,” he said. “But when we’re talking simply about technical or training missions, I think that is something the executive can do on its own.”

The Prime Minister said he was aware however of recent comments made by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae that he said indicated they support a new training mission.

“Look, I do note that the Liberal party, Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Rae have indicated for the past several months that they favour a training mission,” he said. “If they have any specific ideas they want to share, I’m not resistant to having debates on that matter in the House of Commons. But I do think when it comes to decisions such as this, the government has to be free to act.”
end
 
BruceR. raises some interesting points at Flit:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2010_11_10.html#006801

...reportedly the U.S. is pushing for a more combative role for us, with Canadians deployed primarily or at least prominently as police mentors.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/pm-plans-inside-the-wire-role-while-us-presses-for-riskier-one/article1794464/
I don't believe the article is correct here, though: "NATO commanders say they need trainers in classrooms, too – they identified a shortfall of about 900 a month ago, and officials say the shortfall is now about 750."

That's the forecast shortfall for NTM-A (NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan) as a whole, I believe, not just "classroom trainers". NTM-A's strength (which must be close to 10,000 authorized personnel) includes both the trainers and battlefield mentors (although mentors are under operational control of ISAF IJC, they fall under the NTM-A ration strength). The upshot is that if Canadians were to join NTM-A with a "behind the wire" caveat in large numbers, they'd likely be supplanting soldiers from other countries (primarily the U.S.) in the safer billets, who would then shift to cover the mentoring responsibilities.

There are large issues with running operational mentoring teams in areas where you don't have main force units or established infrastructure, like the Canadians do in Kandahar right now. Mobility is one obvious one. If you start bringing Canadian vehicles, you have to have that whole maintenance and recovery infrastructure behind them... if you borrow U.S. ones, you need to train a lot of drivers. The same goes for weapons, clothing, and on and on: either you're generally relying on the "land owner" unit for that area for all kinds of support, or you end up recreating a national support capability at the nearest large base for yourself. The twin competing risks are that you end up with a very small number of actual usable soldiers compared to the support "tail" or that we revisit the World War One debate of having Canadian soldiers being broken up into small subunits within another nation's army.

UPDATE: Just some ballpark figures.
http://www.aco.nato.int/page272701224.aspx
As of Oct/10, NTM-A had a requirement for about 180 ANA OMLT teams (say 20 personnel each) and 475 ANP POMLT teams (again, say 10 each). Say the total NTM-A total strength is 10,000. So at absolute most you're looking at 1,500 "inside the wire" jobs in the entire country. If the proposal is to lay claim to over half of those, basically the majority of all the "behind the wire" training jobs in the Kabul area in other words, in competition with the rest of NATO, that would seem likely to meet some kind of pushback [emphasis added].

Mark
Ottawa
 
GAP said:
Extending Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan does not require Parliament’s approval because the new approach will focus on training, not combat, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday.


Personally, I think that's a tactical error. I would have the House vote. That way if the Libs defeated the motion and the excrement hit the fan, Harper's off the hook. If the Libs agree, then he's also off the hook as they'll take as much blame as he will. We all know the NDP and Bloc are going to vote against any extension of any type, and they don't have the numbers to alter the outcome, so they don't count. Although, the PM might be using the "let's talk then vote" ploy. I'm sure we'll see more as this develops.
 
ModlrMike said:
Personally, I think that's a tactical error. I would have the House vote. That way if the Libs defeated the motion and the excrement hit the fan, Harper's off the hook. If the Libs agree, then he's also off the hook as they'll take as much blame as he will. We all know the NDP and Bloc are going to vote against any extension of any type, and they don't have the numbers to alter the outcome, so they don't count. Although, the PM might be using the "let's talk then vote" ploy. I'm sure we'll see more as this develops.


I'm inclined to agree, for tactical reasons, but see my comments, here, re: Prof Legasse's technical concerns.

I think Canadians want to see who is on which side and I also think (from under my my highly partisan Tory hat) that this will cause some dissent in Liberal ranks and, probably, even a bit for the Dippers (Peter Stoffer and Taliban Jack layton will be on different sides, again.)
 
Harper caved when he let the vote go to the commons.....if he doesn't rein that back in and reassert his control over deployments, he will have lost it forever in an ever increasing spiral downward.....
 
GAP said:
Harper caved when he let the vote go to the commons.....if he doesn't rein that back in and reassert his control over deployments, he will have lost it forever in an ever increasing spiral downward.....


In a way ...

But planning and budgeting is now done in ways that, effectively, deprive parliament of its duty to approve specific spending - especially for things like military operations. The government need not go to parliament until operations are well underway and then parliament is loathe to deny funding because it will be accused of depriving our soldiers of the bullets and beans they need to survive: Hobson's choice.

Maybe requiring at least "take note" debates is a good way but, constitutionally, parliament should be required to vote the money for every unplanned, overseas operation.
 
no argument with "take NOTE" debates, that's informative.

As to the "Hobsons Choice" by the opposition.....they better have their duck lined up, but if they do and can prove their case....go for it.  Remember, the Cons are not always going to be in power, so the same rules apply to them when in opposition...
 
Media out! Of Afghanistan
http://unambig.com/media-out-of-afghanistan/

One particular reason why moving the Canadian military mission to Kabul will be a Good Thing: without the prospect of fairly frequent deaths and ramp ceremonies to obsess over (which coverage has only undermined support for the mission), and with the much greater costs of being based in Kabul, the Canadian major media will rapidly lose interest in what the Canadian Forces are doing in Afghanistan...

There's more.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Well said Mark.  MSM did on the whole, poison the well of public support for the mission.  It would be good to see them take a lessor interest of what may come.
 
When the news broke that the msn was going to be training in Kabul, I said to my wife that there's still scope for me to go. She said "but its in Kabul, not Afghanistan!" I am not joking.

Geography is not her strong point!! ;D
 
I apologize for my ignorance, but can't the Afghans not train themselves after a certain point? Why not utilize the cascade effect;

1 Canadian trains 10 Afghans
Those 10 train 100
Those 100 train 1000
Those 1000 train 10000
...and so on.
 
Back
Top