The Manley Panel on Afghanistan

[kilekaldar]

WTF is this? A Joke? What exactly qualifies these people to render judgment? Do they have any expertise or first hand experience of military affairs, counter-insurgency, nation building, humanitarian aid, training of police, routing out of government corruption, rebuilding essential services, or of anything we are trying to do in Afghanistan? Have they spend any amount of time there? Do they know anything about the country? Could they find Kandahar on a map?

If you're going to do this, why the hell not get some actual SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS?


PM to announce panel on Afghanistan: CTV
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071011/afghanistan_panel_071011/20071011?hub=TopStories

Updated Thu. Oct. 11 2007 10:07 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will announce on Friday a five-person panel of prominent Canadians who will be tasked with coming up with a consensus on Canada's future role in Afghanistan, CTV has learned.

Insiders told CTV that Harper wants to take the partisanship out of the Afghanistan mission that has divided the country, especially as the death toll has risen over the past two years.

The panel will come up with options on the role Canada should play in the war-torn nation after the combat mission ends in February 2009.

The panel of high-profile Canadians is expected to include:

    * Former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley
    * Derek Burney, Canada's former ambassador to Washington and former chief of staff to Brian Mulroney
    * Respected broadcaster Pamela Wallin, who was Canadian consul general in New York
    * Former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister Jake Epp
    * Paul Tellier, former Clerk of the Privy Council and former president and CEO of Canadian National Railway and Bombardier

The panel may consider whether to withdraw or significantly reduce combat troops and replace them with CF-18 fighter jets at Kandahar airfield as the French are doing.

Other options would be for Canadian troops to solely train the Afghan army or play a role in aid and reconstruction.

Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre, who has accused the Conservative government of ignoring his requests to join an official tour of Afghanistan, recently visited Kandahar on an unauthorized visit.

The Conservatives have accused Coderre of staging a stunt, while the Liberal MP accuses the government of overplaying successes in Afghanistan.

During his visit, Coderre reinforced his party's position that Canada's Afghan combat mission must come to an end when the current mandate expires in February 2009. The Liberals have pledged to vote against the Conservative government's plan to extend the mission.

Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, who also visited the war-ravaged country recently with International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda, said Canada is committed to its mission in Afghanistan and will continue developing the nation.

Afghanistan Prime Minister Hamid Karzai has personally called on Canadians to continue the fight, saying his country will fall back into anarchy if they don't.

With a report from CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife

 

[dapaterson]

To the contrary, we've got an ambassador and a former consul-general to the US who can provide useful insight into that bilateral relationship and what impacts Canada's actions could have on that relationship; there's a former Parliamentarian (who served with the Liberals - a fine way to further split that party ,regardless of what the panel's verdict is); a Tory to balance out the equation and keep the rest of the party happy, and a respected Canadian businessman.

They, no doubt, will talk with DFAIT, DND and CF representatives... there are much worse ways to examine options and determine policy that this.

 

[Allen]

I'm sure these 5 won't just have a kaffeeklatsch in a closed room and decide between them what to do. In all likelihood they will interview many experts who will inform their recommendations - kind of like a parliamentary subcommittee.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Yeah we are talking real heavyweights here make no mistake about it! I 'd be very interested in what they might think .
Just had another thought a lot of us (me included) have complained here and elsewhere that the Government could very well loose this war simply because they haven't been able to get this message out to the people in an articulate manner. Simply put we have to make people understand why we are there and what we risk by failing. (pulling out before Afghanistan is ready to stand on it's own feet.)
This panel may very well be the best way to do just that!

 

[SweetNavyJustice]

I think that it goes without saying, although it is important to note that we work for the government and do their bidding.  A panel of five ex-political figures who have experience representing Canadians, and who have in their own way, served Canada are in a good position to debate, discuss, and make recommendations concerning whether we as the CF should remain in AF, and if we are to stay, what our role should be.  

If anything, I hope that it demonstrates (at least to some degree) that the government is looking for an intelligent dialog on the subject, and this will hopefully go some distance toward satisfying some of the detractors.  

 

[The Bread Guy]

Not entirely surprising - this wouldn't be the first issue where the feds, in a minority position and facing a contentious issue, has asked a special representative, envoy or panel to look at things instead of deciding right away.

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Manley to lead Afghan mission review
DANIEL LEBLANC, Globe & Mail, 12 Oct 07
Article link

OTTAWA — The Harper government will appoint former Liberal heavyweight John Manley today to a five-person panel to decide on the future of Canada's presence in Afghanistan after the 2009 deadline for the current mission expires, sources said last night.

The surprise appointment comes a few days before Prime Minister Stephen Harper lays out his plan for the next sitting of Parliament in a Speech from the Throne in which the future of the Afghan mission will be a major component.

The Throne Speech will be a confidence matter and the minority government's stand on its military mission in the war-torn country will be key to its survival.

All parties have attacked the Conservative government on the issue this year, and government officials said the goal in naming a five-member panel is to develop a “non-partisan” consensus on the matter.

Mr. Manley's decision to accept the nomination on the panel will shock many Liberals, who are struggling to come up with a plan for the mission, which they launched when they were in office.

In addition to the former Liberal minister of finance and industry, the multipartite panel will include:

- long-time broadcaster Pamela Wallin, whom the former Liberal government appointed as Canada's representative to New York;

- Canada's former ambassador to Washington, Derek Burney, who was Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney's chief of staff;

- former clerk of the Privy Council Paul Tellier; and

- former Conservative health minister Jake Epp.

Sources said the panel will receive its terms of reference Friday. The members are expected to travel to Afghanistan and report to Mr. Harper in a few months on the best mix of military power, diplomacy and development aid for the country.

The Afghan issue has been one of the most divisive in Ottawa in recent times.

The NDP is calling for an immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan, while the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party want an end to the “combat mission” after the commitment to NATO in Kandahar ends in 16 months.

The Conservatives are pushing for an extended presence of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, while promising that Parliament will have the final word.

The two main parties in the House have been attacking one another on Afghanistan all week. Liberal MP Denis Coderre travelled to Kandahar by himself and criticized the Conservatives throughout his journey.

Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier took the brunt of the attacks over his statement that the situation in Kandahar is improving, despite reports to the contrary.

One federal official dismissed Mr. Coderre's trip as a “big stunt” last night and said the goal of the panel is to come up with a consensus. The panel is looking at all options, and its recommendations will be put before MPs for a final vote.

“Ultimately, Parliament will decide,” the senior official said.

Sources said accepting the chairmanship of the panel was a hard decision for Mr. Manley, given his long-standing Liberal affiliation, but that when the call came from the Prime Minister, it was difficult to turn down.

The committee is one of the most high-powered groups to be assembled in the capital in a long time. Mr. Mulroney, who is so closely connected to three of its members, is a strong supporter of the Afghan mission.

The Liberals seemed unaware last night of Mr. Harper's initiative or Mr. Manley's appointment.

Mr. Harper's past nomination of Liberal MP Wajid Khan as an adviser on the Middle East created much unease in the Liberal caucus, and Mr. Khan subsequently switched to the Conservatives.

 

[GAP]

Now, no matter what is decided, Harper is not to blame....it's the panel and parliment. Great position to be in going into an election.

 

[The Bread Guy]

This just in:

PRIME MINISTER HARPER ANNOUNCES INDEPENDENT ADVISORY PANEL ON AFGHAN MISSION
Prime Minister's Office, 12 Oct 07
Statement link

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced the creation of the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan. The panel’s role will be to advise Parliament on options for the mission after the current mandate ends in February, 2009.

“I am pleased to announce the formation of an independent panel of eminent Canadians who will consider our options and provide expert
non-partisan advice that will help parliamentarians make our decision,” said the Prime Minister.

Chaired by former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs John Manley, the panel will examine four main options, while not
excluding others:

1. Continue training the Afghan army and police so Canada can begin withdrawing its forces in February 2009;
2. Focus on reconstruction and have forces from another country take over security in Kandahar;
3. Shift Canadian security and reconstruction effort to another region in Afghanistan;
4. Withdraw all Canadian military except a minimal force to protect aid workers and diplomats.

The panel, which is to report to the Prime Minister and the Canadian public at the end of January 2008, is expected to conduct its
deliberations while keeping in mind the sacrifices Canadians have made to date in Afghanistan, the potential for deterioration in security and development, Canada’s obligations to NATO and the United Nations, and the implications for Canada’s international reputation.

In addition to Mr. Manley, the panel includes former federal Cabinet Minister Jake Epp, former Clerk of the Privy Council Paul Tellier,
former Canadian Ambassador to the United States Derek Burney, and Pamela Wallin, former Canadian Consul General in New York City.

“These individuals represent a wealth of experience in foreign affairs and each one of them has demonstrated their commitment to Canada through years of public service,” said Prime Minister Harper. “I have no doubt they will examine the issues honestly, fairly, and expertly, and offer wise, impartial counsel that will help Parliamentarians and all Canadians choose the right course for Canada in Afghanistan.”
  _____ 

- edited to add link -

 

[Edward Campbell]

It is (maybe) interesting that this is the second time Manley and Epp have worked together. They were members of Ontario Premier McGuinty’s energy review (2003/2004).

Burney and Tellier have had distinguished careers in government and business.

Wallin has parlayed a successful career in TV journalism into a succession of political/diplomatic and academic appointments. (It’s not really clear to me that she brought much, other than an unswerving loyalty to Jean Chrétien and considerable popularity/celebrity to these posts.) The other four (Burney, Epp, Manley and Tellier) have certainly earned the 'eminent' adjective. All-in-all, it's a good panel for a contentious issue.

I have no doubt that Prime Minister Harper’s main motivation is to partially defuse the Afghanistan issue in the run up to a possible 2007 election – and, as a bonus, to embarrass the Liberals by having Manley and Wallin, especially, on the panel (Tellier’s career was much advanced by Pierre Trudeau (Mulroney made him Clerk but emasculated him by bringing Dalton Camp into the PCO as his (Mulroney’s) personal deputy minister).

But, with John Manley in charge I expect:

1. A clear, concise, unbiased and soundly reasoned report - considering what’s best for Canada;

2. A timely report, too.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am with those that think this group has the credentials, and the credibility, to get beyond the partisanship.

And they might just be able to come up with a few more wrinkles in the way the "ground" situation manifests itself as well as the domestic situation.

I see this as a very good move.

 

[Flip]

It actually appears to be a rather shrewd move on the PMs part.

We know that there is no way to get a "consensus" in Parliament.
We don't want an election - much less one triggered by this issue.
Short of sending all Canadians to school on the issue - what else works?

Dion and Layton have staked out ridiculous and dangerous positions.
They would apparently oppose the changing of the seasons if the
government was in favour.

Here's five wise people and we'll take their advise.
Not do as they dictate - Take their advise.

Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If the role we would like to have for ourselves ("by concensus") happens to be one that is already filled or is not wanted, I wonder whether we'll continue filling the useful role we already have (by default) or pull out.  Kandahar was what was left after the other kids got first pick while we were deciding whether to play - or do I misremember?

I always like to approach difficult problems by asking "What must I do, and in what order?" rather than "What would I like to do right now?".

 

[The Bread Guy]

And, at no extra charge, the PM's speaking notes (and en francais if you prefer):

PLEASE CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

Good morning ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for joining us for an important announcement regarding Canada’s mission in Afghanistan.

As I have long said, our government believes that military deployments abroad should be subject to parliamentary approval.

That’s why, last year, we put the extension of our military commitment to Afghanistan to a parliamentary vote.

A majority of MPs in the House of Commons agreed to extend the mission through February 2009.

That mandate ends roughly 16 months from now, and as we move toward a decision on Canada’s role beyond February 2009, our government wants a full, open and informed debate about our options.

Given what’s at stake – both for our troops and for the Afghan people – we also want the debate to be as non-partisan as possible.

To that end, today I am pleased to announce the formation of an independent panel of eminent Canadians who will consider our options and provide expert non-partisan advice that will help parliamentarians make our decision.

The panel will be chaired by the Honourable John Manley, Canada’s former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs.

His panel will consist of:

Derek Burney, former Canadian Ambassador to the United States;

Former Canadian Consul General in New York City, Pamela Wallin;

The distinguished Montreal business executive as well as a former Clerk of the Privy Council, Paul Tellier; and

The Honourable Jake Epp, former federal Cabinet Minister and current chair of Health Partners International, a non-profit organization that is providing medical aid to Afghanistan

I want to thank all these people for agreeing to take on this important task.

Collectively, they represent a wealth of experience in foreign affairs, and each has demonstrated his or her commitment to Canada through years of public service.

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.

As the panel considers these options, I have asked them to keep the following considerations in mind.

Whatever future path we choose in Afghanistan, it must respect the sacrifices Canadians have made there.

We have made considerable progress in improving the lives of the Afghan people, at great expense to our troops and our treasury.

We must also be cognizant of the risk of a return to chaos in Afghanistan, and of the potential regional and international implications.

We must also bear in mind our obligations to the United Nations and our NATO allies.

And, of course, whatever direction we choose, it must consider the implications for Canada’s international reputation.

I appreciate, John, that we are asking a lot of you, but I have every confidence you will examine the issues honestly, fairly and expertly, and that your wise counsel will help parliamentarians choose the right course.

We look forward to receiving your report by the end of January 2008.

On behalf of the government, and of Canadians, thank you all once again. 

And now over to you, John.

 

[Edward Campbell]

WTF is this? A Joke? What exactly qualifies these people to render judgment? Do they have any expertise or first hand experience of military affairs, counter-insurgency, nation building, humanitarian aid, training of police, routing out of government corruption, rebuilding essential services, or of anything we are trying to do in Afghanistan? Have they spend any amount of time there? Do they know anything about the country? Could they find Kandahar on a map?
...

See my earlier comment, but: Manley, Burney and Tellier have more strategic smarts that pretty much everyone in DND, Minister and CDS included, combined. Manley, Burney and Tellier are at least as able, in every respect, as MacKay, Fonberg and Hillier.

One of the many problem with the Canadian Forces, and I say this respectfully and after more than 35 years of service as a soldier and officer, is that most of its members, including most of the most senior officers, are ill equipped to make strategic judgements and too many (all ranks) are just plain, dirty-dog ignorant.

Hands up: all those who don't know who Fonberg is!

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

I think it's a very shrewd move, especially the appointment of an A list Liberal as the head of the panel. We all know that the list of candidates for the last Liberal leadership campaign was made up of the B list. Mr Manley is probably the leader the Libs should have had .He shrewdly decided not to run after the ADSCAM debacle as he knew they were headed for the wilderness...and who wants to be leader in the wilderness. I think the PM has cut Dion off at the knees by appointing a Liberal who is way more competant than Dion and will likely make most Canadians realize that too. He's also undercut the criticism that could come if he unilaterally recommitted us to more time in Afk by showing that it's a studied decision one way or the other. Absolutely brilliant move.

 

[observor 69]

OK, OK I give....It is a panel of smart people who will have their final decision/recommendations listened to and respected.

My only question is: In the entire body of Canadian government employees, Foreign Affairs, Privy Council, military and many other senior bodies does there not already exist individuals hired to do this job of higher level analysis?
Again I repeat, yes this august body of appointees is certainly qualified to produce a thoughtful document but is their not an element of political cover on Harper's part?

 

[Edward Campbell]

OK, OK I give....It is a panel of smart people who will have their final decision/recommendations listened to and respected.

My only question is: In the entire body of Canadian government employees, Foreign Affairs, Privy Council, military and many other senior bodies does there not already exist individuals hired to do this job of higher level analysis?
Again I repeat, yes this august body of appointees is certainly qualified to produce a thoughtful document but is their not an element of political cover on Harper's part?

I think it's about ⅔ political cover and ⅓ good thinking.

I think Harper is less than thrilled with the strategic thinking in DFAIT and DND and I suspect that PCO (which should be leading the strategic thinking) is preoccupied with other, equally pressing but much less visible issues, including, I fear serious internal security threats posed by ethnic/racial/religious groups in Canada – threats based on home-grown and imported grievances.

As to the cover: if there’s an election based on the Throne Speech then he has, effectively, neutralized the Duceppe/Dion/Layton attack potential on that front. If there is no election then he goes to the House with a motion, based on the report of these five ”eminent Canadians” and the Liberals, anyway, are almost obliged to fall into line.

It looks to me like good politics all the way ‘round and it may result in good policy, too, says I, still shamelessly hyping Ruxted’s positions.


Edit: embarrassing typo Rusted's Ruxted's    :-[

 

[Dale Denton]

I watched the news report online and found a phone interview with Taliban Jack ;D He somehow managed to mention the Kyoto Protocol :brickwall:

 

[MarkOttawa]

Excerpts from an article Mr Manley just published following a visit to Afstan in May this year as a director of CARE Canada:
http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/oct07/manley.pdf

What became very plain to me, however, was that there is no possible way to separate [emphasis added] the development or humanitarian mission from the military one. There can be no meaningful progress on development without an improved security environment. This can  only exist if the institutions of rule of law can be established and the government of Afghanistan can succeed in establishing a welcome presence in more regions of the country.

Whenever we asked Afghans what they thought ISAF or Canada should do, they did not hesitate to say that we must stay [emphasis added]. Without the presence of the international forces, chaos would surely ensue.

But in looking to the future, expectations must be reasonable. Afghanistan is a deeply divided tribal society, with divisions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims [actually between the Shia Hazaras and all the other ethnic groups which are Sunni] further complicating the mix. It has been racked by decades of war, and it remains the third-poorest country on earth. There should be no belief that after five or
even ten years of Western military presence and aid, Afghanistan will resemble Kansas. With patience, commitment and some luck, it will resemble Afghanistan. But an Afghanistan in which people can live together in relative security. Democracy has very shallow roots and has yet to prove itself to Afghans as a viable system of  government.

Institutions that are respected will not be built overnight. Police and judges will need time to be trained, and the means to pay them must be established, but a functioning economy needs security in which to grow...

For me, Afghanistan is an enormous opportunity for Canada. For the first time in many years, we have brought a level of commitment to an international problem that gives us real weight and credibility. For once, our 3Ds (defence, diplomacy and development assistance) are all pointed at the same problem, and officials from three departments are working together.

Canadians hear mainly about our military role and are hardpressed to put it into a broader context of either peacekeeping, development or humanitarianism. They should hear more about the important and meaningful contribution our development assistance is making...

We often seek to define Canada’s role in the world. Well, for whatever reason, we have one in Afghanistan. Let’s not abandon it too easily. But let’s use our hard-earned influence to make sure the job is done right [emphasis added].

Amen.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Journeyman]

...a phone interview with Taliban Jack ;D He somehow managed to mention the Kyoto Protocol :brickwall:

Merely a desperate attempt to jump on the bandwagon of Al Gore getting the Nobel Peace Prize (WTF ???) for his anti-global warming efforts. Not even remotely related to the topic at hand. As such:
Too little
Too late
Typical NDP irrelevance