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

[vonGarvin]

I read this:

What on earth were we doing in Kandahar? Now that it’s all over, that question hangs in the air. Decades hence, students will be stumped by that question in much the same way I was when my high-school textbook opened to Canada’s place in the Boer War. It was full of sound and fury, but signifying exactly what? How did we pour five years, more than $18-billion and 158 lives into something so large and nebulous? How do we avoid repeating the mistake?

Then I stopped reading, because no matter the argument, I could not agree with that assumption.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I read this:Then I stopped reading, because no matter the argument, I could not agree with that assumption.

That's why I said, 'Ignore the first and last paragraphs - they are utter, complete crap." 

 

[Infanteer]

Was not the move to Khandahar seen to have been a result of dithering at the highest levels in Ottawa until the safer billets were taken? At least that was the interpretation at the time circa 2005-2006.

If Gross Stein and Lang's argument is to be believed (and it seemed like a good explanation) Canada was focused on Kandahar from the start; the military wanted to do some heavy lifting and Paul Martin's government wanted to reinvent itself on the international stage.

 

[Edward Campbell]

If Gross Stein and Lang's argument is to be believed (and it seemed like a good explanation) Canada was focused on Kandahar from the start; the military wanted to do some heavy lifting and Paul Martin's government wanted to reinvent itself on the international stage.

But that is not inconsistent with a plan, developed outside of NATO, to avoid serving with selected allies.

 

[Old Sweat]

If Gross Stein and Lang's argument is to be believed (and it seemed like a good explanation) Canada was focused on Kandahar from the start; the military wanted to do some heavy lifting and Paul Martin's government wanted to reinvent itself on the international stage.

Which also reinforces the vital ground argument. If true, we got our wish, as the majority of NATO certainly stayed away from the south and the fighting.

This paragraph seems to be the worst type of revisionsim, or sloppy research, or both.

The process that led from Canada’s modest 2001 participation in the Kabul operation into the five-year semi-colonial Kandahar odyssey that began in 2006 remains something of a mystery. I’ve heard diplomatic and military officials of very high rank tell me they don’t really know how Canada became embroiled. Al-Qaeda had already been banished from Afghanistan by the time we entered the south. Our soldiers were professional, extremely courageous, calmly civilized and never quite sure what had caused them to be there.

Our first participation, starting with SOF in late 2001 and then 3 PPCLI in 2002, was in Kandahar. It was not until 2003 that we joined ISAF in Kabul.

 

[vonGarvin]

Any study of our participation in military operations in Afghanistan ought to cover from 11 September 2001 to present.  From the first overt action that is clearly linked to us being there.  Let us not forget that in 2002, when 3 PPCLI's "tour" was close to being a few months long and the questions were "who would replace them?" were being surfaced, then-PM Jean Chretien muttered along the lines of "we have nobody to replace them with..."  Then, as the war drums were beating for Iraq a few months after they redeployed, and Canada was sitting on a fence, saying neither "yes" nor "no" to participation in any enforcement of UN resolutions on Iraq in terms of offensive military action, it was suddenly announced that "2000 troops" would deploy to Kabul to participate as part of the ISAF mission there.  Then the tune turned to "Sorry, USA, we don't have any troops left to help you...."  (Of course, that tune later turned into "we told the big, bad USA "no!"": revisionism at its best).

In short, no study ought to look at one part whilst conveniently ignoring the rest, or worse, making inane judgements that cloud the entire argument.  Even worse would be factual errors.  Given all of this, the previously posted article warrants none of my effort to read given its blatant revisionist recounting of Canadian military operations in Afghanistan.

 

[Good2Golf]

...This paragraph seems to be the worst type of revisionsim, or sloppy research, or both.

The process that led from Canada’s modest 2001 participation in the Kabul operation into the five-year semi-colonial Kandahar odyssey that began in 2006 remains something of a mystery. I’ve heard diplomatic and military officials of very high rank tell me they don’t really know how Canada became embroiled. Al-Qaeda had already been banished from Afghanistan by the time we entered the south. Our soldiers were professional, extremely courageous, calmly civilized and never quite sure what had caused them to be there.

Our first participation, starting with SOF in late 2001 and then 3 PPCLI in 2002, was in Kandahar. It was not until 2003 that we joined ISAF in Kabul.

Fully concur.  :nod:

Saunders kind of has his head up his behind if he thinks that the Special Operations Forces in 2001 and LCol (Ret'd) Pat Stogran's PPCLI battle group in 2002, both in Kandahar, were a "modest 2001 participation in the Kabul operation".

This shows Saunders rather poor research style coupled with a rather disingenuous writing style that tries to conveniently remove elements of the reality on the ground that don't fit with how he would like his readership to believe things truly happened.  Perhaps Saunders was the only person in Canada who missed the furor when the pictures of JTF2 assaulters escorting Al Queda detainees out of an American MH-53 hit the press?  ???

I think I would put more faith in an OPED piece from the National Enquirer than I would in Saunders' musings.  :

Regards
G2G

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is a link to the RUSI paper around which Saunders built his 'report.'

 

[a_majoor]

Sounds like "The Accidental War" plot of evil General Hillier tricking Prime Minister Martin into the mission is going to be the preferred "narrative" from this point on, and we will be seeing more and more "papers", opinions and books based on this narrative unless (and until) a stake can be driven through its heart.

These "narratives" have enduring power; I am talking to my daughter about her high school history course and they are still teaching the "Canadians are peacekeepers" myth, rather than teaching UN peacekeeping was an economy of force effort supporting the main Cold War effort in Europe. I can only imagine what our children are going to be taught about our mission in Afghanistan.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Here is a link to the RUSI paper around which Saunders built his 'report.'

And I note he doesn't share it, trusting us to trust HIS cherry picking summary of said report....

 

[Edward Campbell]

If, and it's a big IF, what Saunders says Matthew Willis says is accurate then, early in the last decade, during the Chrétien/Martin era, we - the (just some?) agents of the Government of Canada - actively sought a better role in world affairs and we - those agents of the government, again - did so based upon some hard lessons learned during our (1990s) missions in the Balkans; lessons about who, amongst our putative allies, can and cannot be trusted.

 

[The Bread Guy]

If, and it's a big IF, what Saunders says Matthew Willis says is accurate then, early in the last decade, during the Chrétien/Martin era, we - the (just some?) agents of the Government of Canada - actively sought a better role in world affairs and we - those agents of the government, again - did so based upon some hard lessons learned during our (1990s) missions in the Balkans; lessons about who, amongst our putative allies, can and cannot be trusted.

Wonder if Willis even knows about the Saunders piece yet?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Here we go again with the "are we in, or are we out?" message dance - highlights mine

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has opened the door to Canadian special forces staying in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of NATO forces in 2014.

There are reports that the Pentagon has asked the Conservative government to consider leaving a contingent behind in the war-ravaged nation to help train Afghan commandos and to keep up the fight against al-Qaida and Taliban militants.

Harper said there has been no specific request that Canada stay on past 2014, but suggested he may be willing to consider the idea.

"As we approach that date, we will examine all options and we will take the decision that is in the best interest of this country and in the best interest of our security objectives for the globe," Harper said under questioning in the House of Commons on Wednesday.

His refusal to rule out a further extension outraged New Democrats, who described it as a violation of the parliamentary motion that ended the country's combat mission in Kandahar a year ago.

Special forces have been operating in Afghanistan, alongside U.S. troops, since 2001. As with the regular army, their combat mission ended last summer.

A small contingent of the elite soldiers are among the 950 trainers Canada has provided to the continuing NATO training mission in Kabul and are also scheduled for withdrawal in the spring of 2014.

Opposition Leader Tom Mulcair says the public has been clear, they want the troops home and the NDP will fight any proposed extension.

Parliament has spoken and the country's role is finished, Mulcair said.

"Stephen Harper is playing with fire, once again. We should be gone from Afghanistan. It is over.

"It's not proper for a Canadian prime minister to be so subservient to American military dictates as Stephen Harper seems to be in this case, once again."

The prime minister said the NDP's reaction was "knee-jerk" and "ideological."

"It's not a remarkable statement that the NDP won't support the mission," said Harper. "The NDP couldn't even make up its mind to support World War Two." ....

The Canadian Press, 25 Apr 12

 

[The Bread Guy]

More from the PM on the future of the Afghan mission from Hansard:

Mr. Speaker, I have been told that we have not had that specific request from the United States. Whether it comes or not, I will be very clear, Canada will make its own determination in this regard. We have our forces there now to help train the Afghan security forces because it is in the interests of our country that Afghanistan does not become once again a safe haven for terrorism and also in our interest that, in order to prevent that, the Afghans themselves assume greater responsibility for their own security. Our government will make any decisions it makes with the best interests of our own country and the world community in mind .... it is not a remarkable statement that the NDP will not support the mission. The NDP could not even make up its mind to support the World War II mission. Canada has been involved in Afghanistan with the support of most of the parties in the House for some years. Our plan at the current time is, obviously, for the mission that goes to 2014, but, as we approach that date, we will examine all options and we will take the decision that is in the best interests of this country and in the best interests of our security objectives for the globe, and not an ideological knee-jerk response like the NDP .... all of the military missions committed to under this government have come before the House: the mission in Libya, which the House approved; we did not begin the mission to Afghanistan but the extensions of that mission. Certainly, should there be any other significant military missions, we are committed to getting the consent of Parliament before we act. That has been our action and that is what we will do in the future.

 

[The Bread Guy]

More from the PM on the future of the Afghan mission, from Hansard:

Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister left the door wide open to extending Canada's military mission in Afghanistan beyond 2014. He spouted rhetoric and stated that the government had not received this specific request, despite the fact that reliable military sources have told the media that a request was in fact received from the United States.  Is the Prime Minister saying that the United States has not made any contact whatsoever with Canada regarding the possible extension of the mission in Afghanistan?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I said that I have had no such contact.  I also said that our priorities remain the same, namely, to ensure that Afghanistan is safe so that it does not become a threat to our security and to ensure that Afghans themselves assume greater responsibility for their own security.

Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister stated, “all of the military missions committed to under this government have come before the House”. However, that is not the case, and he knows it.  The last extension in Afghanistan was authorized by the Prime Minister acting alone. In November 2010, he said to Jack Layton:  "The government has never submitted missions that do not involve combat to the House of Commons. This is a training and technical assistance mission and that is why we are acting on executive authority."  Is the Prime Minister going to act unilaterally once again to keep our troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, once again, as I said, the government has every intention of bringing military missions to the House of Commons. In this case, this is a training mission. It is important that we ensure that Afghanistan is safe and is not a threat to global security. It is important also that the Afghans are responsible for their own security. That is why we are there, to prepare them to assume the full responsibility for their own security. 

Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, our troops have been in Afghanistan too long already. Canadians have told us that they do not want another extension. They do not want a Prime Minister who vacillates on whether there will be an extension. They want a Prime Minister who respects the role of Parliament, period.  Canadians want a clear answer from the Prime Minister. Will he keep our troops in Afghanistan past 2014, yes or no?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I have made myself very clear. Unlike the NDP, we are not going to ideologically have a position regardless of circumstances.  The leader of the NDP, in 1939, did not even want to support war against Hitler.

An hon. member: There was no NDP.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper: Okay, it was the CCF, same difference. Parties do change their names from time to time.  Our position is we will do what is in the best interests of Canada.

To clarify the "the CCF leader didn't support WW2" vs. the previous day's "The NDP could not even make up its mind to support the World War II mission", here's the rest of the story from the Socialist History Project

.... The CCF’s 1933 Regina Manifesto was very clear on war. It said:

    "We stand resolutely against all participation in imperialist wars…. Canada must refuse to be entangled in any more wars fought to make the world safe for capitalism."

In 1937, CCF leader J.S. Woodsworth proposed a resolution in Parliament which declared that Canada would remain neutral in any war.

But for most of the CCF leadership, those fine words didn’t last a day past the beginning of a real war. In September 1939, the CCF national council voted 13-9 to support the government’s declaration of war. In the House of Commons, only one CCF M.P., party leader J.S. Woodsworth, spoke and voted against the war ....

 

[jollyjacktar]

It's starting to be a requirement that "Should I stay or should I go" by The Clash will have to be the march past for this mission.

 

[Timmy!]

Always tease tease tease
You’re happy when I’m on my knees
One day is fine, next day is black
So if you want me off your back
Well come on and let me know
Should I stay or should I go?​

 

[OldSolduer]

At this rate I may even get a tour in.

 

[Timmy!]

I don't mind another tour.

He he he, see you there Jim.  ;D


Should I stay or should I go now?
Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
And if I stay it will be double
So come on and let me know.....

Should I stay or should I go?

 

[The Bread Guy]

It's starting to be a requirement that "Should I stay or should I go" by The Clash will have to be the march past for this mission.

Good one!

At this rate I may even get a tour in.

With a majority government, never say never, right?