The Manley Panel on Afghanistan

[Edward Campbell]

Those dollar a year men (I think they were all men) were still on salary (good salaries) by their civvy employers - a sort of support the war effort gesture by corporations reaping tidy profits from defence contracts.

Mr. Manley is on staff at [http://www.mccarthy.ca/home.aspx]McCarthy Tétrault LLP[/url] - one of those $500/hour type firms. I suspect we (taxpayers) are well served by $1,400/day (all in) rather than $500.00/hour (plus expenses).

 

[GAP]

After I posted that the rate of pay was not too out of line, this post got me thinking (Amazing that).   In WWII we had very important and promient people working on the war effort for a $1 a year.    Maybe we should retool that concept?  People working for the national to be of service and not reward. 

An example of this is Premier Danny Williams of NFL.....he turns back his salary.

 

[foresterab]

For perspective from another field...

Oil and gas consultants/landmen usually make between $750-1350/day here in Alberta and may or may not have stock options and benifits associated.

Not bad for a profession where you don't need any formal training, need to be able to read and write, and generally only take a couple of hours work for each applicaiton.

Is it high wages compared to the per diem paid to the Armed Forces...yes.  But at least the members of the Armed forces aren't forced to walk around with the tag of "Politician" or "consultant" applied to them all the time.

 

[GAP]

Manley's panel will visit Afghanistan, but plans no public hearings on mission
ALAN FREEMAN October 20, 2007
Article Link

OTTAWA -- The independent panel on the future of Canada's mission in Afghanistan will not hold public hearings but does plan to travel to the war-torn country and to consult widely with experts.

The five-member panel, led by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley, has already rented office space in downtown Ottawa and is expected to have its first meeting this weekend, according to a source close to the panel.

The group was appointed last week by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to make recommendations on the future of the contentious military mission, currently due to end in February of 2009.

The panel has been asked to finish its work by Jan. 31, 2008, giving it about three months to research, deliberate and write its report, although the legal mandate extends to March 31. The panel has recruited a half-dozen federal officials who have been seconded from Foreign Affairs, National Defence and the Canadian International Development Agency.

The timing of the visit to Afghanistan is still under wraps for security reasons. The panel is also expected to visit NATO headquarters in Brussels and to get advice from academics and non-governmental organizations active in Afghanistan.

Mr. Manley visited Afghanistan in May in his role as a director of CARE Canada.

As reported earlier in The Globe and Mail, members of the panel are entitled to per diem payments of $1,200 to $1,400 in the case of Mr. Manley and $850 to $1,000 in the case of the other four panelists.

But according to the Privy Council Office, some members of the panel have already indicated that they will serve without pay for personal reasons or because they already receive federal pensions.

In addition, in the case of Mr. Manley and Jake Epp, their remuneration for work on the panel is strictly limited because they receive pensions as former MPs. Similar rules apply to former public servants appointed by Governor in Council, but details of the individual cases were not made public because of privacy laws.

 

[The Bread Guy]

In spite of initial reports that the panel wasn't going to have public hearings, now they're setting up to take public submissions via web page - shared with the usual disclaimer...

Manley Afghanistan panel will open website for public submissions
John Ward, Canadian Press, 27 Oct 07
Article link - Permalink (.pdf)

John Manley's Afghanistan panel is setting up a website to take written submissions from the public, the head of a Canadian development group said Saturday.

The panel has said it had no plans for public hearings, but Gerry Barr, president of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, said the website will allow for public input.

Barr and representatives of about a dozen other Canadian air groups met Manley and his panel on Saturday. They were told an Internet site will be running soon and will accept comments and recommendations.

"Plainly, if they put their address on the website and ask for submissions, they're going to get them from the general public," Barr said.

Barr said the aid groups had a lively two hours behind closed doors with Manley and his four fellow committee members.

Manley, a former Liberal cabinet minister and one-time leadership contender, was appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper earlier this month to look at the future of Canada's commitment in Afghanistan.

At the time, Harper said he wanted the panel to consider four options:

-Keep training Afghan troops and police to be self-sustaining when Canadian troops withdraw.

-Focus on reconstruction in Kandahar with another NATO country taking over security.

-Shift Canadian security and reconstruction to another region of Afghanistan.

-Withdraw the main body of Canada's troops in February 2009.

Barr said he urged Manley and the panel to look beyond those choices.

"The options . . . that were given to them at the front end all had to do with . . . the Canadian military in Afghanistan," Barr said. "We were there to say to them that you need to put in your option category actively the search for a political consensus in Afghanistan, a national peace process and how Canada could support that kind of process."

Barr also said it's important to break perceived linkages between the military and development, which can become intertwined in people's minds.

"If there is a sort of military signature on aid . . . then the projects themselves can become targets in an insurgency war. As projects become targets, citizens and civilians are targeted themselves . . . and we do the opposite of what we intend with aid.

"We have to stop any confusion between the aid and the military effort."

He agreed, though, that security can't be ignored:

"Plainly, security and development do relate to one another. It's important to have security in order to have development, but that does not mean they are Siamese twins."

Manley and his fellow panel members - former broadcaster Pamela Wallin, Derek Burney, former ambassador to Washington and one-time chief of staff to Brian Mulroney, Paul Tellier, former clerk of the privy council and Jake Epp, a former Mulroney cabinet minister - are expected to report by January.

Harper appointed the panel amid a political debate over what Canada should do when the mandate of its current Afghan commitment runs out in February 2009. The Conservatives are leaning to a continuation, other parties are demanding that the troops come home.

 

[Kirkhill]

"Plainly, security and development do relate to one another. It's important to have security in order to have development, but that does not mean they are Siamese twins."

Plainly Mr. Barr fails to understand that they ARE Siamese twins.  They are the twin functions of Government: Carrot/Patronage/Development vs Stick/Coercion/Security.

In the absence of either capability the Government of Afghanistan must rely on "the kindness of strangers" to provide those capabilities so that it can exercise them.  Whether or not a Government can stay in power depends on how well it can perform that balancing act.

 

[The Bread Guy]

And the website is, indeed, up:

http://www.independent-panel-independant.ca/

 

[The Bread Guy]

Just spotted this - appears to have been produced Monday and posted shortly thereafter:

Recommendations to the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan
Full report (10pg .pdf), December 2007

"The Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan was asked to investigate different options for Canada’s future policy towards Afghanistan, including the option of troop withdrawal. In this submission, The Senlis Council would like to argue that withdrawal is not an option. Leaving the country would be a national tragedy for both Afghanistan and Canada. Instead, with its key role on Afghanistan, Canada should take leadership on the international stage. It should exert a leadership role within NATO to increase both military involvement in Afghanistan, and humanitarian aid and development efforts."

More specifically, in their main recommendations:

"Recommendation I: Military delivers Aid & Security Action Plan (ASAP) - Canada should develop an Aid & Security Action Plan (ASAP) for Kandahar, focusing on targeted humanitarian aid and enhanced medical treatment capacity through mobile field hospitals, a rebuilt and re-furbished Mirwais Hospital and medical training programmes. Food aid and medical aid will directly improve the relationships with the Afghan people in Kandahar and will positively affect the security mission in the province. Emergency poverty relief should be a priority for the Canadian mission. Given the dire humanitarian situation and negative security environment in Kandahar, the Canadian Government should immediately empower the Canadian military to secure the delivery of Canada-funded food aid and other supplies to Kandahar’s people. Where there are no local or international aid organisations present, the Canadian soldiers should be involved in the actual delivery of humanitarian aid.

Recommendation II: Canada should convene an emergency NATO meeting to discuss the hearts and minds strategy for Afghanistan - Canada should play a leading role within NATO to create a new balance between military and humanitarian efforts within the stabilisation strategy for Afghanistan. Economic-focused humanitarian interventions should be placed at the core of military planning as a way to pursue an effective hearts and minds strategy. The core challenge is to show the people that the international community is addressing their most basic needs. So far, the failure to do so has given the Taliban a strategic advantage over international troops. A focus on economic humanitarian aid will defuse tensions and create support for the international presence and the central government within rural communities. It will also reduce the growing control that the Taliban exert over those communities, making the troops’ missions safer ....

Recommendation III: Decrease civilian casualties and introduce emergency treatment of civilians injured in fighting and bombings - Increased incidents involving civilian casualties, primarily in bombing raids, have predictably proven to be detrimental in winning the support and trust of the Afghan people, and have caused enormous suffering for the people of Kandahar. We must adopt a policy of zero civilian casualties. Air strikes must be limited to those instances where the objective is well defined and civilians will not be victimised. The deployment of highly skilled military paramedics must be implemented immediately in southern Afghanistan. These paramedics would locate, transport, and stabilize casualties of war in liaison with the armed forces and should also be used to train Afghan women and men as future paramedics.

Recommendation IV: Achievement of measures of success defines withdrawal date - Canada should establish clear objectives and corresponding measures of success for its humanitarian, stabilisation and reconstruction work in Afghanistan and should make both its troop commitment and a future end date of its mission dependent on measurable progress in these fields. Key indicators should include health-care, education, and training of ANA/ANP. Canada should stay in Afghanistan until the job is done. To leave before then, can easily be seen as a manifestation of the West’s ‘disposable’ and arrogant attitude toward the people of Afghanistan, a fickle abandonment of our “most significant foreign policy endeavour”, and a sad commentary on the value of the Canadian lives already sacrificed.

Recommendation V: Sound counter-narcotics policies - Canada must take a leadership role in support of President Karzai against chemical spraying of poppy crops. Chemical spraying of poppy growing areas would be disastrous for the Canadian hearts and minds mission. An opinion poll conducted in August 2007 by Ipsos Reid showed that 82 per cent of the Canadian public opposed chemical spraying.1 54 per cent opposed forced crop eradication altogether. Canada should support the implementation of a scientific Poppy for Medicine pilot project in Kandahar province to investigate the positive benefits of local morphine production on farming communities´ security and development. The Ipsos Reid opinion poll further showed that 79 per cent of Canadians support a Poppy for Medicine pilot projects and 70 per cent thinks Prime Minister Harper should support this short-term economic development tool. At the same time Canada should invest further in alternative livelihoods and diversification of the rural economy ....

Recommendation VI: The Canadian Government should empower Canadian citizens to help Afghans through exchange and development programmes - The Canadian Government should do more to empower Canadian citizens to help Afghanistan. For this purpose, it should build on its “Canada Corps” initiative and broaden this approach with a proper infrastructure that allows Canadian individuals and aid organisations to maximise their role and impact in the Afghan reconstruction and development process. Stimulating help programmes and professional exchanges between Canadians and Afghans will not only increase mutual understanding, but will also empower more Canadians to directly provide support to communities in Kandahar, creating stronger popular support for a difficult but necessary mission. The Canadian Government should also investigate ways to encourage private investment by Canadian entities, for example through a system of tax credits. "

 

[Donut]

This jumped out at me:

Just spotted this - appears to have been produced Monday and posted shortly thereafter:

Recommendations to the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan
Full report (10pg .pdf), December 2007

"The Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan was asked to investigate different options for Canada’s future policy towards Afghanistan, including the option of troop withdrawal. In this submission, The Senlis Council would like to argue that withdrawal is not an option. Leaving the country would be a national tragedy for both Afghanistan and Canada. Instead, with its key role on Afghanistan, Canada should take leadership on the international stage. It should exert a leadership role within NATO to increase both military involvement in Afghanistan, and humanitarian aid and development efforts."

More specifically, in their main recommendations:

"Recommendation I: Military delivers Aid & Security Action Plan (ASAP) - Canada should develop an Aid & Security Action Plan (ASAP) for Kandahar, focusing on targeted humanitarian aid and enhanced medical treatment capacity through mobile field hospitals, a rebuilt and re-furbished Mirwais Hospital and medical training programmes. Food aid and medical aid will directly improve the relationships with the Afghan people in Kandahar and will positively affect the security mission in the province. Emergency poverty relief should be a priority for the Canadian mission. Given the dire humanitarian situation and negative security environment in Kandahar, the Canadian Government should immediately empower the Canadian military to secure the delivery of Canada-funded food aid and other supplies to Kandahar’s people. Where there are no local or international aid organisations present, the Canadian soldiers should be involved in the actual delivery of humanitarian aid. ...

Recommendation III: Decrease civilian casualties and introduce emergency treatment of civilians injured in fighting and bombings - Increased incidents involving civilian casualties, primarily in bombing raids, have predictably proven to be detrimental in winning the support and trust of the Afghan people, and have caused enormous suffering for the people of Kandahar. We must adopt a policy of zero civilian casualties. Air strikes must be limited to those instances where the objective is well defined and civilians will not be victimised. The deployment of highly skilled military paramedics must be implemented immediately in southern Afghanistan. These paramedics would locate, transport, and stabilize casualties of war in liaison with the armed forces and should also be used to train Afghan women and men as future paramedics.

Last time I checked, the Senlis Country Director for Afghanistan was Ed McCormick, a BC Ambulance Service Paramedic.

He's also the one who wrote a very scathing piece on CF Medical Service's neglect of Mir Wais, while we staffed the Role 3 "just down the road", and recommended that the CF place some of our staff there to support and mentor the Afghan health care professionals.

Not surprising that he's focussed on the health care situation, and he may have a point that health care to underserved populations may be a great means to dislocate the insurgents from the local populace.  He's clearly unaware of how stretched the CFHS is just to staff the necessary KAF and Role 1 positions, and the fact that we already provide care and transport for anyone we injure, even at the expense of reserve capabilities in Kandahar and other NATO medical treatment facilities

PMT

Edit to correct Mr. McCormick's job title and confirm spelling

 

[The Bread Guy]

I was wondering why so much detail in the underlying recommendations focusing on medical facilities.

Also, this was posted after I posted the original material - we'll see how much MSM picks up this headline:

"De Facto Taliban Al Qaeda State forming on Pakistan/Afghanistan Border
Manley Panel urged to recommend Canada call for Emergency NATO meeting
Withdrawal of NATO troops from Southern Afghanistan could lead to abandonment of Afghan people - a repeat of Rwanda, Srebrenica" - link to news release

 

[DualCore]

I don't think we need to worry that the Senlis Council will be ignored by the Canadian MSM.  With thousands of Canadians in Afghanistan, the only news we get is ramp-ceremonies and Senlis Council, so I think reprinting an Senlis editorial statement written like an news article is cheap and easy compared with actually reporting about the war.

On the substance, I'm sure an UN administered narco-state on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border could generate significant revenues for the infamous Oil-for-Food-Bureaucrats and Kyoto-Bureaucrats, but wouldn't it be simpler if we just granted them monopoly-authority over the Internet, or cell phone frequencies?

 

[The Bread Guy]

On the substance, I'm sure an UN administered narco-state on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border could generate significant revenues for the infamous Oil-for-Food-Bureaucrats and Kyoto-Bureaucrats, but wouldn't it be simpler if we just granted them monopoly-authority over the Internet, or cell phone frequencies?

Hi, always nice to see a new face on the boards - not much profile filled, I see...

Happy to see a range of input, but do you have any, oh, I don't know, links to back this up with?

I sense you're not, shall we say, entirely on board re:  helping Afghans towards a life outside the rule of people who would execute them for having American money in their pockets?  Or am I misreading?

 

[1feral1]

On the substance, I'm sure an UN administered narco-state on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border could generate significant revenues for the infamous Oil-for-Food-Bureaucrats and Kyoto-Bureaucrats, but wouldn't it be simpler if we just granted them monopoly-authority over the Internet, or cell phone frequencies?

Ever consider a career in politics??

A paragraph full of words meaning nothing. You'd do well. I did not make any sense of that whatsoever.

Wes

 

[DualCore]

re: Or am I misreading?

Yes, you are misreading.

I am entirely in favour of Canada bringing security, peace, prosperity, and civilization to Afghanistan, and the border regions of Pakistan that may need it even more than Kabul, Kandahar, and Helmand.

And I'd like it done with double the manpower and triple the budget.

What I oppose is that the people of Canada drop to their knees, renounce their political system, and surrender the control of our military to a handful of oddballs financed by gods-knows-who who want Canadian soldiers to be their enforcers and drug-mules. 

Although I realize that Canadian politicians and journalists have important work to do today with the Mulroney/Schreiber fiasco and the James-Moore/Old-Hag/Scantily-clad-women fiasco.

As I write this, the CBC (Canadian State Media) is interviewing a former beauty-queen about the situation in Iran.   I'm all for Canada having an opinion about Iran, and yesterday our Ambassador was expelled so it is certainly topical, but instead we have an idiot from MuchMusic flirting with a hot young women of Iranian origin, rather than any serious journalism on the subject.

 

[aesop081]

My spider-sense detects a touch of conspiracy theory nutjob......

Or maybe i'm just hungry. I'm not sure yet

 

[The Bread Guy]

Uh..... yeah.....

 

[1feral1]

What I oppose is that the people of Canada drop to their knees, renounce their political system, and surrender the control of our military to a handful of oddballs financed by gods-knows-who who want Canadian soldiers to be their enforcers and drug-mules. 

Although I realize that Canadian politicians and journalists have important work to do today with the Mulroney/Schreiber fiasco and the James-Moore/Old-Hag/Scantily-clad-women fiasco.

Holy shyte, over!

What's he on?

Wes

 

[tomahawk6]

Manley report won't call for Canada to leave Afghanistan

Mike Blanchfield, Canwest News Service
Published: Friday, January 18, 2008



OTTAWA -- There will be no dramatic reduction of Canadian troops from volatile southern Afghanistan called for by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley in his eagerly awaited report on the country's military future there.

After touring NATO headquarters, Afghanistan and receiving hundreds of submissions, the independent commission created by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to advise his government on the way forward is not expected to recommend any significant scaling back of Canada's commitment of 2,500 soldiers in the Kandahar region, or any profound change in their current marching orders.

While it is expected Mr. Manley will emphasize the need for Canada to continue contributing to the training of Afghan national army and police personnel, the panel's findings, to be released as early as Tuesday, will not recommend a significant shift in the mission that Canada is currently conducting there with its 25 NATO allies and 11 other partner countries.

A published report earlier this week suggested that the Manley commission would recommend a phased reduction of Canadian personnel in Afghanistan to as low as 1,500.

A source familiar with the content of the final report told Canwest News that it would not contain any specific calls for troop reductions.

Many people who have contributed submissions to the panel say they came away with the impression that Mr. Manley and his fellow members are essentially in favour of staying the course in Afghanistan. That is, continuing combat operations while simultaneously training Afghan security forces towards the mutually agreed NATO endgame of withdrawal at a later, undetermined date.

"I basically said we should stay and continue our role," said Canadian military historian and author Jack Granatstein, summarizing his submission to the panel last month.

"Their questions seemed to be of a kind that when people ask you questions you get a sense of what way they're leaning," he added. "I had the sense listening to them and watching their body language they agreed with what I was saying."

Granatstein's impression indicates that the commission is likely to reject three of the four possible options in its terms of reference: an end to Canada's current combat role, and a shift towards development and diplomatic efforts; large-scale withdrawals of Canadian troops starting in February 2009; or a shift to a less volatile part of the country.

That leaves one option on the table: continue the current mission until western troops can begin a "phased withdrawal" starting no earlier than February 2009 and "consistent with progress" in training Afghan forces.

Mr. Harper wants the panel to advise him on a course of action after Canada's current commitment to NATO expires in February 2009, but he has repeatedly said that Canada will not pull out of Afghanistan until it is secure.

The Conservatives would like to extend the military commitment to 2011, but the three federal opposition parties, who hold the majority of seats in the House of Commons, are opposed.

Mr. Harper has pledged to bring the matter to a vote in the Commons, but has said he doesn't want the issue to be decided by partisan politics.

"If they put it to a vote in the House, I don't see how it can pass unless there's a sudden outbreak of influenza on the opposition benches," said Mr. Granatstein.

Mr. Granatstein said it would be "calamitous" if the Commons rejected continuing Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan because it would negatively ripple throughout NATO, which is still short of troops and military hardware.

"It will knock our reputation, which was wobbly under the Grits, back to what it was. We will be, once again, unreliable Canada."

When Mr. Manley was foreign minister in the former Liberal government, he was openly critical of Canada for not pulling its weight on the international stage.

Afghanistan Ambassador Omar Samad said his country will respect whatever decision the government makes, but he noted that it would have international ramifications far beyond Canadian domestic politics.

"This is not purely a bilateral issue between Canada and Afghanistan. This is an issue between a recipient country such as Afghanistan and the international community at different levels. On the security side, you have NATO as a body, which derives its legitimate actions from a UN-mandated mission," Mr. Samad said.

"It's going to be important to take decisions, taking into the account the NATO and UN mandates and to do so in a coherent and coordinated fashion."

In their submission to Mr. Manley, the Liberals stressed the need for Canada to notify NATO of its intent to pull out of Afghanistan on schedule so replacement troops could be found in another country.

But any reduction in Canada's commitment would appear to cut directly against the current tide of international momentum that is building towards April's NATO summit in Romania, which will also host UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

NATO officials have said both publicly and privately -- including on a below-the-radar visit to Ottawa this past week -- that Canada's contribution to the south is as necessary now as it ever was. No one, quite simply, is waiting in the wings to replace Canada in Kandahar.

U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said this week that other NATO countries had better start looking for a replacement for the 3,200 extra marines already headed to the Kandahar region in April because they aren't staying there longer than seven months.

The parliament of the Netherlands, one of Canada's key allies in the south, has granted an extension to 2010.

Mr. Granatstein said Mr. Harper could chose to delay the vote in Canada's parliament until after the NATO summit.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay suggested earlier this week that there isn't another country waiting to replace Canada, and that it has no intention of leaving its allies in a lurch.

"I have concerns about other NATO countries and their capacity and willingness to do more," Mr. MacKay said.

"What we're trying to do is see that this mission succeeds, first and foremost. That means NATO, all for one and one for all ... and a big, big part of it is the training element."

Ottawa Citizen

 

[Gunner98]

"A source familiar with the content of the final report told Canwest News that it would not contain any specific calls for troop reductions."

Mike does like that flowery language to support his hunches while not committing to a 'specific statement".  It is easy to guess what it won't say but why doesn't he say what it will contain.