More on Poles in Afstan

May I suggest reading the comment below--reality not rhetoric?

7:32 PM, July 31, 2007

Courage under fire

How depressingly Canadian, especially from a former army officer:

"Canada wouldn't want the U.K. to lessen its role in Afghanistan because that would put more pressure on us at a time we're trying to lessen our role," said Alex Morrison, president of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.

Globe really has its guns out

It seems to me that the CDS's speaking about timelines for training the ANA is perfectly within his strictly military responsibilities. There was no substantive contradiction with what the minister had said--contrary to the now received truth in the media, and in this Globe and Mail editorial. Editor-in-Chief Eddie Greenspon has been out to get the Afstan mission, as well as the CDS for some time.

Even the lowest-ranking soldier understands that an army cannot function properly without discipline. But in the midst of Canada's most important mission in a half-century, this principle appears to have been forgotten at the highest level of the military. And while Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor bears much of the blame for this state of affairs, ultimate responsibility rests with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Mr. O'Connor and Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff, have long had an uneasy relationship. But recently it has reached an untenable level of dysfunction, as evidenced by a bizarre public disagreement over the future of Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

On July 22, Mr. O'Connor appeared on CTV's Question Period to paint a rosy picture of the mission's progress. By the end of this year, he suggested, Afghanistan's army may be ready to allow Canadian front-line efforts to be scaled back. At the time, his comments seemed out of step with the more common analysis that Afghanistan's army has a long way to go. Sure enough, a week later General Hillier appeared on the same program to contradict Mr. O'Connor. "It's going to take a long while," he said of preparing Afghan troops to take over. "We've just started the process."

It has been increasingly obvious throughout his tenure as defence minister that Mr. O'Connor is in over his head. But, embarrassing though it may be for him, it reflects even more badly on Mr. Harper. For months, the Prime Minister has stood by as Mr. O'Connor has repeatedly been humiliated - not only by Gen. Hillier's repeated contradictions of his public statements, but also by his incompetence in handling the controversy over the treatment of Afghan detainees. No doubt concerned that replacing Mr. O'Connor would shake public faith in the Afghan mission, Mr. Harper has refused to acknowledge his obvious mistake in appointing Mr. O'Connor to his position. Meanwhile, his responses to Mr. O'Connor's critics have grown increasingly ludicrous, with the Prime Minister going so far as to suggest this past spring that the minister was beyond criticism because, unlike opposition MPs, he once served in the army.

No military can function properly without strong civilian oversight. But with every day that Mr. Harper leaves his overmatched minister in the job, we are moving closer to that scenario. Gen. Hillier, more than Mr. O'Connor, now appears to speak for Canada's defence policy. Disturbing as this may be when it comes to public statements, it is all the more so if he is also steamrollering Mr. O'Connor behind closed doors.

It is not Gen. Hillier's fault that he effectively has nobody to answer to. But if Mr. Harper does not replace Mr. O'Connor, his only option will be to rein in Gen. Hillier himself. Better he should appoint a minister who commands the respect of the Chief of the Defence Staff and all other Canadian soldiers.

UN head in Afstan wants more NATO troops

Whenever you see references to European or German attitudes and perceptions, read "Canadian". I wish the Canadian populace, pundits and politicians could see this--and I wish our government could make the case for the Afghan mission as cogently and powerfully:

German politicians are growing increasingly uncomfortable with the presence of Bundeswehr troops in Afghanistan. UN Special Representative for Afghanistan [and Head of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan] Tom Koenigs spoke to SPIEGEL ONLINE about the need for Germany and its troops to persist in Afghanistan and to keep the promise the West made to the war-torn country...

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Displeasure over the deployment of Bundeswehr troops seems to be growing in Germany. The split over this issue can also be observed within your party, the Greens. Left-leaning regional Green Party groups want to put the issue of German troops in Afghanistan back on the agenda at a special party conference planned in September before the federal parliament votes on renewing the mandate.

Koenigs: We can't cave in to the terrorist threat. That would be the worst thing you could do to the Afghans and to the aid workers who want to continue working there. You have to face the challenge and vigorously stay on course. There is no other way to bring the situation under control. And one must not forget: The Afghan people have asked us to support them. After all, they suffer most from the terror of the Taliban...

...We have promised them we would support the reconstruction of their country and the restoration of democracy. Most Afghan people would like to see more, rather than fewer, Western troops in their country in order to improve security. The Americans have just contributed more troops. The British have also provided more troops. And there is strong pressure on other countries.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Should the Germans send additional troops to Afghanistan?

Koenigs: That would be very desirable, especially people who can provide training. At the moment, the key is to strengthen the Afghan security forces. In the long term, they are the ones who must secure peace, justice and the law in the country. The international forces must stay and keep the country stable until the national forces are strong enough to defeat the insurgency. International military forces can't strike down a national insurgency. That's the Afghan army's job.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What does your hope that the Afghan military can achieve that rest on?

Koenigs: The Taliban are unpopular, even in the south of the country. We have to rely much more strongly on the local police and train policemen much better, as well as much faster. The successes so far with building a civilian and democratic police force still leave much to be desired. In that area, we are still far from having achieved the target. The Afghan people want more support from us in that area. If the reverse were to happen, the Taliban and also the international militant Islamist movement would see any reduction in committment as (ISAF) faltering that would then be exploited for their propagandic purposes. Taliban operations are always aimed very directly at European parliaments and at the various political situations in the countries of origin of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops...

SPIEGEL ONLINE: This autumn Germany's parliament, the Bundestag, will once again vote on whether or not to extend the mandate of the German troops deployed in Afghanistan. Is there a possibility we will have to prepare for more targeted operations prior to the decision?

Koenigs: That is probably going too far. But it is striking that the Taliban follow the decisions in the European countries very closely and are familiar with the weak points.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What would be the highest aspiration of the Taliban? Pressuring a country to break out of the alliance?

Koenigs: Not just that, but that the entire international community (in Afghanistan) crumbles and withdraws from Afghanistan for lack of critical mass [emphasis added].

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So the Taliban are hoping for a process of political erosion?

Koenigs: Yes, both in the military and in the civilian areas. But that the international community would commit itself more strongly now is something the Taliban were certainly not expecting when they began their massive insurgency one year ago. Nor were they expecting that aid for Afghanistan -- both military and civilian -- would now find almost unanimous support in the US Congress.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is the US military strategy in the south providing the Taliban with combatants and sympathizers because of the high number of civilian casualties [this might help reduce those casualties - MC]? Some critics of the United States, such as German Left Party politician Oskar Lafontaine, come close to claiming that the Taliban have a right to revolt.

Koenigs: I have difficulty seeing the right to revolt against a democratically elected government. I don't know what norms that should be derived from. Moreover, the Taliban are an extremely brutal movement that rides roughshod over classic martial law. They don't even distinguish between combatants and civilians.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: You don't think the United States should reconsider its military strategy?

Koenigs: The United States does not have a separate military strategy. Nevertheless, there are coordination shortcomings on the strategic level. The harmonization of civilian and military strategy has to be improved. Coordination within the military forces is also suboptimal [emphasis added]. The local international commander and the Afghan commander sometimes don't know what the other side is doing at any given moment. In the worst case scenario, that can lead to civilian casualties...

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are the Germans simply too impatient when it comes to the mission in Afghanistan?

Koenigs: One cannot expect that, in only five years, all the problems can be solved in a country that has just experienced 30 years of civil war. When I came to Afghanistan a year and a half ago, the warlords seemed to be the main problem. One hardly hears about that now. Progress has also been made in health care and in fighting infant mortality. But we must never forget that Afghanistan is the fifth-poorest country in the world. We need patience and stamina and should not allow ourselves to be discouraged by temporary setbacks. Most importantly, we should keep our promise. Those who want to withdraw now would leave the Afghan people in the lurch and abandon them to a terribly brutal movement.

Globemastering

Good news:

Air Force personnel doing final checks on C-17 before delivery to Canada

A small group of Canadian Air Force personnel and others are working enthusiastically behind the scenes at the Boeing plant in Long Beach, California to prepare for the arrival of the first Canadian C-17 Globemaster III aircraft at 8 Wing Trenton next month...

Once Canada is satisfied that the aircraft is good to go, a senior member of the C-17 PMO will fly to Long Beach to sign the "DD250" - Delivery Document - and then, it'll be time for Canada's first C-17 aircrew to pull the chalks, start the engines and bring the giant bird "home" to Trenton...

Canada One flew its maiden flight on Monday, July 23 from Long Beach, California over the Pacific Ocean and around Catalina Island...

Predate:

SEVILLE, August 1 (2013): A small group of Canadian Air Force personnel are doing final checks on an A400M before...

Predate update (gracias a Fred):

SEVILLE, August 1 (2015): A small group of Canadian Air Force personnel are doing final checks on an A400M before...

Honoring More of Our Troops

The Governor General has announced three more awards to our soldiers, one of them posthumous. You can find the official press release here. I'll reprint from the backgrounder of these three soldiers:

Major Paeta Derek Hess-von Kruedener, M.S.C., C.D. (posthumous)
Kingston, Burlington and Kitchener, Ontario
Meritorious Service Cross (Military Division)

Major Hess-von Kruedener is awarded the Meritorious Service Cross posthumously for his outstanding performance and dedication to duty while serving at a United Nations observation post in the Khiam area of southern Lebanon. When the conflict erupted, Major Hess-von Kruedener knew he could not be evacuated, yet he steadfastly maintained his position while reporting the situation as it presented itself, until his untimely death on July 25, 2006. A Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry officer, Major Hess-Von Kruedener brought great honour to the Canadian Forces and to the military profession.

Lieutenant-Colonel Omer Henry Lavoie, M.S.C., C.D.
Petawawa, Stittsville and Marathon, Ontario
Meritorious Service Cross (Military Division)

From August 2006 to February 2007, Lieutenant-Colonel Lavoie commanded the 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment Battle Group, in southern Afghanistan. He played a leading role in two complex brigade operations, including Operation MEDUSA, the most significant ground combat operation in NATO’s history. His battle group’s actions throughout their operational tour set the conditions for thousands of Afghans to return to their homes. During this period of sustained intense combat, Lieutenant-Colonel Lavoie led from the front, sharing the dangers and harsh living conditions of his troops. His exceptional professionalism and leadership in combat brought great credit to the Canadian Forces, to Canada and to NATO.

Warrant Officer Michael Bradley Smith, M.S.M., C.D.
Calgary, Alberta
Meritorious Service Medal (Military Division)

From May 4 to November 2006, Warrant Officer Smith served as the senior tactics and weapons maintenance instructor for the Armoured Vehicle General Purpose and Machine Gun course, two critical components of operations in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. His outstanding leadership and technical expertise contributed to a significant improvement in the operational effectiveness of UN patrols conducted in some of the world’s most unforgiving environmental conditions. In a diverse and complex mission, Warrant Officer Smith’s dogged determination, technical expertise and strength of character enhanced the operational effectiveness of over 200 African Union soldiers.

Media create fake war: Hillier et al. vs. O'Connor

Once again our media are spinning wildly in their constant effort to find fault with the Afghan mission. The Ottawa Citizen today:

Hillier casts doubt on O'Connor's timeline
Afghans won't be able to take over so soon, top soldier says

Canada's top soldier is pouring cold water on the Harper government's suggestions that Afghan troops are almost ready to take the lead in the battle against the Taliban, allowing Canadian soldiers to move away from deadly combat situations in southern Afghanistan.

Gen. Rick Hillier said yesterday that he doesn't expect his soldiers will be out of danger any time soon.

"Whether we're working to conduct an operation directly ourselves and lead it supporting the Afghan troops, or whether we are supporting Afghan troops in operations and they are in the lead, we are still going to be in a high-risk environment and you cannot eliminate casualties or ensure that they don't take place completely," Gen. Hillier said on CTV's Question Period.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor had suggested last week that Canada's troops could move into a reserve role by the end of the year, once the newly trained Afghan soldiers are ready to take the lead.

But Gen. Hillier said the Afghan army simply wasn't going to be ready so soon, despite a major training effort by Canadians.

"It's going to take a long while," Gen. Hillier said. "We've just started the process, because we've just got the first soldiers in the south in these last few months. But we're at a far better stage now than we've ever been."..

From the Globe and Mail:

Top Canadian military commanders voiced doubts Sunday about how rapidly the Afghan National Army can shoulder the fighting load – raising the possibility of NATO pressure to extend Canada's Afghanistan mission past the current commitment that expires in February, 2009.

In Ottawa, General Rick Hillier seemed to contradict Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor's optimistic predication that the Afghans would be taking on most of the front-line combat by next spring in Kandahar province, where Canada's powerful battle group is waging a tough counter-insurgency war against the Taliban.

“It's going to take a long while,” Gen. Hillier told CTV's Question Period, referring to the training of the Afghan National Army. “We've just started the process.” He also said it would be a “significant challenge'' for the ANA to be ready in the time frame proposed by Mr. O'Connor only a week ago on the same program...

From CTV News:

Canada's outgoing military commander in Afghanistan says the Afghan National Army is making great progress, but it's unlikely the fledgling force will be able to take over frontline responsibilities by next spring.

Brig.-Gen. Tim Grant's comments come one week after Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said he expects Canadian troops to begin shifting to a training role by next spring as the Afghans take on more combat duties.

Grant told CTV's Canada AM the Afghan army is improving dramatically, but he offered a cautious response to O'Connor's prediction.

"They're doing well. Will they be able to carry the entire burden by the end of this upcoming (rotation)? Probably not, but we're hopeful," Grant said.

"They're keen to make a success and we're doing everything we can to make sure they're as successful as they can be."

O'Connor had pointed to the Canadians' successful mentoring of one Afghan battalion that is now out in the field conducting operations on its own, and said that was to be a model used to train other Afghan battalions, eventually taking weight off the Canadians.

But Gen. Rick Hillier also downplayed his political boss's comments, saying that handing over front-line duties to the Afghan army wouldn't be easy.

"We'd like to see that it was in that position to be able to do so by next February, but that would be certainly a significant challenge for them," Hillier said Sunday on CTV's Question Period in the wake of O'Connor's comments...

From CBC News:

Canada's chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, said over the weekend that he wasn't so sure troops would be able to hand over much of the frontline fighting to the Afghan National Army by that time. His frank assessment appeared to contradict Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor's assertion that the Afghan forces would be ready...

"Casts doubt"..."pouring cold water"..."voiced doubts"..."seemed to contradict"..."downplayed his political boss's comments"..."appeared to contradict"...well I guess it's pretty clear that the Minister of National Defence was trying to mislead the public, eh?

Well, NO. This is what Mr O'Connor said:

Globe:

...“We're hoping that by the end of this rotation ... the so-called Vandoos rotation, we'll have about 3,000 Afghan Army operating in the Kandahar province,” he said.

“And as we train more and more of the Afghan army to carry out their own operations, we will continue to withdraw. With more emphasis on training … at some stage [emphasis added - MC] [we'll] basically be in reserve.”

Mr. O'Connor said that if all goes according to plan, it will mean a reduction in Canadian combat duties [emphasis added]...

CTV:

O'Connor said Canadian troops recently sponsored an Afghan infantry battalion, providing intense mentorship and training, and as a result the battalion is now conducting its own operations.

He described it as a success that will be used as a model for training other battalions, and will eventually take pressure off the Canadians [emphasis added]...

No contradiction there. The minister never said the Afghan National Army would be able effectively take over the combat mission by next February. But that's not what the media want you to think.

The interview with Gen. Hillier is here. The one with Minister O'Connor is here. Watch them yourself and form your own opinion about the accuracy of the media "reporting".

Update: An excerpt from an e-mail by Alain Pellerin, Executive Director of the Conference of Defence Associations:

The CDA would like to bring to your attention Gen Rick Hillier's interview on CTV QP on 29 July...You will note that the interviewer tries to highlight what he sees as some cleavage between the CDS and MND on the future of the mission, particularly on the previous comments of the MND on CF being in "reserve" eventually and according to Bob Fiffe on the CTV National News on 22 July that:" Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says by the time the 22nd Regiment, known as the Van Doos, takes over the mission in Afghanistan in August, the Canadian military will be shifting from combat to the classroom."

At no time did the Minister, in his interview, suggest that " the Canadian military will be shifting from combat to the classroom." He did suggest, however, that the R22eR Battle group will become less and less involved in active combat and will act more and more as a provider of training and mentoring to the nascent Afghan Army. The key to a successful withdrawal from Afghanistan is developing Afghan security forces, the ANA and ANP, to the point where they are able to assume the burden of their nation’s security. I will leave it to you to draw your conclusions as to whether the MND, the CDS and Tim Grant are in disagreement over the mission in Kandahar. I do not believe they are...

Upperdate: For a typical example of the dismal state of political discussion on Afstan listen to the "Political Panel" this afternoon on CFRA, Ottawa (the host, Rob Snow, is as ill-informed--even though I sent him this post--as all the party "strategists"). The links are here and here.

More on A400M shocker

A Flight International story adds details to the AW&ST snippet:

First flight of the Airbus Military A400M transport has slipped by several months from the first quarter of next year, according to majority stakeholder EADS, which has for the first time also hinted at the possibility of making late customer deliveries.

EADS revealed in its half-year results report that the A400M's flight debut has been delayed until "the summer of 2008", and said "the consequence on deliveries and cost is under assessment".

This work is being headed by Airbus Military managing director Carlos Suárez, who assumed responsibility for the programme on 1 July.

"The [A400M] programme contains material risks on the overall time schedule, and system providers continue to face challenges that may infer late design implications," says EADS.

A key area of concern is the aircraft's Europrop International-developed TP400-D6 turboprop engine, test flights of which have already been delayed from earlier this year until at least the fourth quarter (Flight International, 26 June-2 July).

Meanwhile, delayed final assembly of the A400M is to start at EADS Casa's Seville site in southern Spain in late August, following a five-month delay from Airbus Military's previous plan to start work in late March.

The company plans to meet its commitment to deliver the first A400M to the French air force in late 2009.

Update (thanks to Fred in "Comments"):

EADS warns of potentially 'critical' delays to A400M military transport

Afstan: Reality vs. politics

Don Martin of CanWest News reflects at the end of his assignment; pretty fair I would say--and his comments on Prime Minister Harper are interesting (to say the least):

Right off the bat, let me argue that Canada cannot impose a political timetable on successfully ending this military mission.

It's like picking a date before the Normandy invasion for Canada to withdraw from the Second World War, yet we're just 18 months from a House of Commons vote to retreat with no obvious heir to our United Nations responsibility for the dangerously volatile Kandahar province.

Canadian-assisted progress on redevelopment, political reform, army training, police education and humanitarian relief will be terminated for political expediency, not measurable accomplishment...

Prime Minister Stephen Harper should not revisit Kandahar any time soon.

His sudden wimpiness on the file, replacing unconditional support for the mission with a shrugged surrender to a fix-is-in consensus of Parliament, is seen as inexplicable here. Soldiers who believed they had a Churchillian prime minister now know he's just another political weather vane, twisting in response to the winds of public opinion...

I left the brightest development for last, but Kandahar City is on an economic roll, booming in population and bursting with building activity.

The lineup of truck traffic outside the city's customs terminal is a sight vaguely reminiscent of a Windsor border crossing, albeit with colourful jingle trucks in lieu of 18-wheelers. There are billboards extolling the virtues of a university education over becoming a suicide bomber.

It is, veteran observers say, an echo of what happened in Kabul several years ago when the capital prospered and security concerns abated. If the south's largest city can thrive in spite of chronic security problems, hope springs anew the entire region will stabilize and revitalize.

But know this for sure: If Canada pulls out in early 2009 as expected, hope for Kandahar will fade.

As Lieutenant-General Michel Gauthier, commander of Canadian expeditionary forces, told reporters yesterday: "I don't think anybody believes the job is going to be done by February '09 from an international community perspective. Nobody's under any illusion that Afghanistan will be self-sustaining and self-sufficient by February '09."

He won't say it, but that reality makes it imperative that Canadian forces stay here until the job is done, even if the surrender monkeys in Ottawa think it's politically convenient to leave.

Progress in Afstan

A progessive blogger takes notice of the Ruxted Group (who the latter are is outlined here).

Defence procurement: Jim Travesty has no clue

The Toronto Star's ace columnist busts his flush. He writes:

Not much about Stephen Harper's government is as simple or complex as its support for the military. Since promising in the last election to boost defence budgets by more than $5 billion, Conservatives have been even more generous, ordering planes, ships and even tanks while talking about restoring pride and more muscular offshore missions. What isn't clear is how that spending fits the forces into a coherent foreign policy.

Critics insist the reason is obvious: This prime minister's international priorities are pleasing Washington and playing diaspora politics at home. Neither requires a sophisticated, overarching strategy...

The only Conservative acquisitions and spending plans that are truly new are the C-17s, Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships (with a strong element of asserting ourselves against the Americans, no less), and the Leopard 2s.

All the other major ones were either part of CF plans under the Liberals or considered by the Liberals and rejected. In November 2005 MND Graham's proposal to buy C-130Js, Chinooks and fixed-wing SAR aircraft--the last once a Liberal priority--was shot down and the Liberals agreed only to fast-track the Hercs.

Three other major projects are these: joint support ships, frigate refit, new trucks.

Budget 2004 Defence Highlights:

...plans to move forward with the Joint Support Ship project...

Defence and Budget 2005 - Highlights:

...new medium capacity helicopters [i.e. CH-47s];
logistics trucks...

As for the frigate refit (note the date):

Planning, preparation and coordination of the modernization began in 2005...

So was it the Liberals sucking up to the Americans? Or Jim Travesty's simply being a very bad journalist? Vote.

Helicopters

A Liberal complaining about our lack of helicopters is not unlike a child who kills his parents and cries about being an orphan. It is hypocrisy and it is absurd.

Go get 'em Licia

RCMP at work in Afstan

The Afghan National Police are a real problem, especially in comparison with the Afghan National Army. The RCMP are doing their bit to help:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Afghanistan is in the “middle of an insurgency” and countries like Canada that are rebuilding it shouldn’t make a hasty exit, says the RCMP officer helping train Afghan police recruits.

The war-torn country risks going backward if international forces leave before it’s self-sufficient, said RCMP Supt. David Fudge.

Fudge is a police officer with 30 years of experience and his job is to help train Afghan police recruits who are often illiterate and arrive in tattered clothes and flip-flops.

He has been on the job in Afghanistan for a year as part of Canada’s provincial reconstruction team, a multi-level unit that includes soldiers, police officers and officials from Foreign Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency...

“The job is not done yet. And if we leave too early, we very much stand the risk of going back to ground zero or even worse, as we’ve seen in Haiti, where we had to go back and start rebuilding from zero again [emphasis added--I don't see much in the way of second chances in Afstan].”..

...the newly appointed police chief of Kandahar province has stated that Canada would be making a serious mistake by pulling its troops out by 2009 due to the terrorist threat.

Fudge refused to comment on the political decision involving Canada’s participation in Afghanistan, but he did say the giant task of stabilization won’t be completed before the deadline set by Ottawa...

In the last year, the police contingent headed by the RCMP has trained 600 recruits for the Afghan national police. It will take another 3,200 trained recruits to ensure adequate policing and surveillance in Kandahar, Fudge said.

Afghan police face chaos, bribes from drug traffickers and even the possibility of being shot at by the international forces that are supposed to be their allies. They also can face hostility from the local population.

“We’re trying to improve the image of the Afghan national police in the public eye,” Fudge said. “It’s going to take long time, yes. I would say at least one generation, if we do it right.”

Fudge said there were no police stations when he arrived but “I’m proud to say we have five stations under construction right now. Actually, two are finished.”

The long-term plan is for Canada is to build a state-of-the-art police-training facility...

But, heck, let's just get the hell out of there as soon as we (in)decently can. This comment at Milnet.ca sums thing up nicely (scroll down):

I wish those who incessantly beat the defeatist drum would take note. Afghanistan is not a 'good news' story. There is a whole lot which is wrong, progress is slow to sporadic in too many regions, it is, all too often, 'two steps forward and one back' but that is the nature of this campaign. But, there is some progress, everywhere – not as much as many, including, I suspect, most soldiers would like but as much as we can expect given the huge challenges facing Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is as poor and unfortunate as, in Canada, are rich and favoured. Yet many, maybe even most Canadian want to abandon those poor people to the tender mercies of medieval theocrats just because we haven't made a huge, highly visible difference in a very short time. Our celebrity obsessed, instant gratification, me, Me, ME! culture has, apparently broken our will to ”do the right things” and to ”do things right.” Other countries, notably, the valiant and stout hearted Dutch are also wavering. They need a leader to follow – a country that will do the right thing. They need to understand that if they stay it will be as part of a well managed campaign – one which does things right. Canada can and should play both roles: we should lead the way by renewing our commitment to helping the Afghans to help themselves and we should take on a greater role in managing the campaign to ensure that things are done right...

Afstan: Now we find out

But a bit late to counteract the widespread perception amongst too many Canadians that the situation is hopeless. This will hardly counterbalance all the damage the Globe and Mail's negative coverage has done--along with the coverage of the rest of our media and the ignorant posturing of opposition parties.

Given the enormity of the task of establishing a civil society in a war-ravaged and impoverished land, progress in Kandahar has been swift and impressive since the long convoys of Canadian troops rolled south 11/2 years ago [emphasis added]. Then, there was a grave threat that the Taliban would seize the city of Kandahar, creating a Islamic statelet that would undermine Afghanistan and re-emerge as a new haven for al-Qaeda.

That threat has gone. The Taliban, as a stand-and-fight force, stood and was defeated last fall in the Panjwai district west of Kandahar.

Canadian troops, on aggressive search-and-destroy missions, regularly rout and kill small groups of Taliban fighters. Equally important, the fledgling Afghan National Army, mentored by embedded Canadian teams and with Canadian artillery and tank support, is increasingly capable of conducting small-scale combat operations [emphasis added].

“That's why I am so optimistic after 10 months,” Brig.-Gen. Grant said.

Kandahar city is bustling. The fertile Panjwai has been mostly repopulated. It's no small measure of progress that small children shyly wave to passing Canadian armoured vehicles. “There are plenty of places where people still don't wave,” one soldier said.

Almost by definition, waging a successful counterinsurgency, especially for a foreign army, consists of barely perceptible progress that rarely warrants headlines back home interrupted with headline-making failures, defeats and mistakes [emphasis added--what "defeats"?]...

The bolded bits basically say it all. Pity it's probably too late for most Canadians to realize the situation. The Conservative government also bears a heavy responsibility for that failure to understand:

"I sense cutting and running," says Canadian military historian and author Jack Granatstein. "We are clearly preparing to end or greatly minimize our combat role. It's obviously too politically damaging.

"I don't think Canadian public opinion can withstand massive coverage of every death."..

If the media focus on combat deaths is bad for the government's political fortunes, the scarcity of information the government is offering to the Canadian public about the mission is also eroding support [emphasis added]. This criticism comes not only from the political opposition, but also from military pundits who have traditionally been supportive of Canada's intervention in Afghanistan.

"What is needed is regular briefings like we had during Kosovo," says Alain Pellerin, head of the Conference of Defence Associations.

Mr. Pellerin says the government tends to restrict communications to news releases issued at the time of a Canadian casualty, typically reaffirming the importance of the mission and the soldier's part in it.

"Between these dates when people get killed there's no flow of information," he says. "Because there is a vacuum, there is a lot of speculation."..

Canada's Commons defence committee commented in its latest Afghanistan report last month that a lack of information about the mission can fuel public intolerance.

"In the end, the committee came to think that uninformed impatience at home might have some adverse impact on our national will and, therefore, have a negative influence on our determination to what is required to achieve strategic objectives set by government [emphasis added--no shoot!]," the committee noted...

More good Afstan news

Further to the second part of this post of Babbling's, the Ruxted Group supplies a lot of data.

Afstan: Sen. Hugh Segal loses his marbles

What is gluey Hughie thinking? Here's a proposal of his for future Canadian military operations:

One need only look at the no-fly zones enforced over northern and southern Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf war to note the range of strategic choices available to the allies. We could follow through on our NATO obligations and serve the region by reducing ground forces, patrolling from the air in manned and unmanned aircraft, making full use of other surveillance capacities and offering support for allied naval containment and air rapid-response capacity. Nimble, easily deployed constant air surveillance and other tactical theatre options would ensure fewer risks for our convoys...

Hey, Hugh! Since the Taliban have no aircraft what's all this about no-fly zones? Afstan is landlocked so what's the "naval containment" all about? And haven't you heard the uproar about civilian casualties when aircraft respond?

If that's the best a Conservative senator of great repute can come up with, boy is this country in trouble.

Update:More on the silly senator here.

Asserting Arctic sovereignty...

...would be easier if we had Coast Guard icebreakers capable of operating like this for extended periods in the Northwest Passage (another slightly misleading headline if you read the story closely):

Icebreaker-turned-laboratory begins 15-month Arctic voyage

Fixed-wing SAR replacement: "we’re putting proposals in front of the government to that end"

But how soon will the government act? The headline is a bit misleading:

Ottawa to replace aircraft

The new commander of Canada’s air force says proposals to replace the country’s aging fleet of fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft will soon be put before the government.

The Conservatives have already spent nearly $13-billion on other new aircraft, notably the gigantic C-17 Globemaster heavy-lift transport.

But Lt.-Gen. Angus Watt, who took over air force command on Thursday, said replacing fixed-wing search and rescue planes is a priority.

"Right now for fixed-wing search and rescue we are relying on two of the oldest fleets, which are the Hercules and the Buffalo," he said following sweltering induction ceremony on the tarmac at Canadian Aviation Museum.

"We can continue to extend their lives and they can continue to fly safely, but at a certain point it becomes uneconomical to keep refurbishing."

The former Liberal government proposed to replace the aircraft, some of which are more than 40 years old, with 15 brand new planes.

But the $2.1-billion program has been stalled within the bureaucracy and sidelined by big-ticket purchases, such as the C-17s, the medium-lift C-130J, and the CH-47 Chinook battlefield transport helicopters, all of which are seen as essential for the war in Afghanistan [if the latter two get there before we pull out - MC]...

"It takes, from the time we sign the contract (to delivery), three years. The key problem is getting to the signature on the contract. It’s hard to predict how long that will take. The sooner the better."

When the project was first announced in the spring of 2004 [and the Liberals called it a priority then!], it was expected the last of the new planes would be on the tarmac by April 2009.

The EADS-CASA C-295 and the Alenia C-27J Spartan are believed to be the main contenders, but there has also been talk that Montreal-based Bombardier is interested in bidding [but Bombardier has no suitable plane, unless politics really intrude].

The US recently selected the C-27J for its new Joint (army, air force) Cargo Aircraft.

Poles in Afstan

I urge everyone to read the second comment at this post.

Two quotes

"Maybe - but this is a heresy - if we adjusted our definition of "news," instead of ritualistically serving up the predictable and not terribly consequential, a few more consumers might be interested. They would certainly be better informed."

- Jeffrey Simpson, The Globe & Mail

* * *

"A remarkable string of success stories is found in the compact's Joint Co-ordination and Monitoring Board's first annual, but little-noticed, progress report released in May, indicating long strides toward those goals.
...
Choosing between clear progress and Taliban-inspired anarchy, one would think, would be an easy choice."

- Bob Bergen, The Ottawa Citizen

Lead, follow, or get out of the way

Agreed.

On getting out of your lane

I'm not a fan of Carolyn Parrish. I mean, I'm REALLY not a fan.

But to give the part-time geopolitical affairs expert and full-time harpy her due, she's at least plain about where she stands on the issue of Afghanistan:

Politicians sent them there for political reasons - reasons I don't agree with. To those who hove returned from fighting I say "thank God you're home safely. I'm sorry you had to endure terrible hardships to make some politicians happy." I'm sorry, but we'll have to agree to disagree on Afghanistan. I hope you broadcast this and my other response to your network. For me, the subject is now finished.

That's the only credit I'll give her, though. Her e-mails are so rife with misinformation, it would take me more time than I care to devote to fisking them as thoroughly as I might. But I will point out a few of her more irritating pieces of fantasy.

We have a long tradition, starting with Lester B. Pearson, of Peacekeeping. And the world recognizes this.

I've addressed this pernicious, but hardy Canadian myth many times in the past, however the truth bears repeating.

Firstly, our martial history does not begin with the Suez Crisis. That is nothing more than a convenient starting point for those who wish to propagate their own ideologically twisted version of our heritage, and it ignores the equally valid Canadian tradition of fighting hard when fighting is required - in South Africa, in France and Belgium, across Europe again, and in Korea.

Secondly, peacekeeping was never, NEVER the primary focus of our military. The Canadian Forces has always been devoted to war-fighting, first and foremost. Ignorant mouthpieces like Ms. Parrish like to talk about our proud and noble peacekeeping record, but make no mention of the fact that more Canadian troops were tasked with fighting the Warsaw Pact in Germany if it ever came to that than ever served in a blue UN beret. Our efficacy as peacekeepers stemmed directly from our reputation as warfighters; peacekeeping is ineffective without at least the credible threat of force.

Thirdly, peacekeeping was undertaken as a sub-strategy in a bigger conflict (pdf): the Cold War. It was one aspect of Canada's contribution to collective security for the West, and would not have developed the way it did without the bipolar superpower dynamic that gave it context. To promote it as some morally superior, wholly altruistic endeavour is profoundly ignorant or equally dishonest.

I'm so very tired of pulling this weedy lie from the soil of the Canadian consciousness. Please, let this be the end of it.

Next up: guilt by association - but only in the atrophied little brain of the Mississaugan councillor:

Of late, the Afghan political leaders have criticized the U.S, Britain and Canada as overly brutal and careless.

While it's true that the Afghans are concerned about NATO airstrikes, and civilian casualties in general, I'd appreciate it if Ms. Parrish would provide us with a quote from a disgruntled Afghan politician in support of her casual smear of the CF reputation in Afghanistan. Because I know the Canadians are viewed as a breed apart by local Afghan officials, and unlike her, I have the quotes to prove it.

First, from the Afghan Minister of Rural Rehabilitation and Development, Mohammad Efhan Zia:

"Our expectation is that international community and the Canadian government and Canadian people who have endured sacrifices and casualties in Afghanistan should not leave the job half done," Zia told reporters in the lush garden of a government guest house in Kandahar.

"I think it is the moral responsibility of the entire international community to help fellow mankind to come out of the vicious cycle of poverty and overcome the threat of terrorism in any part of the world."

...

"Because of Canadian financial assistance I've been able to start this massive development initiative in the province of Kandahar," he said.

"Canada is helping the government of Afghanistan in the area of security, they are making these efforts on the request of our government and on the request of the people of Kandahar for improving the security situation. They are not taking unilateral decisions here in the country."

And, even more to the point, Assadullah Khalid, the Governor of Kandahar:

Chaos created by international troops roaring through Kandahar City on military convoys needs to be reigned in, Afghan elders said Tuesday, and they're counting on Canada's military leadership to do the job.

The elders applauded Canadian efforts to make connections with civilians on the ground, such as a simple yet profound gesture to honour the families of two Afghans killed by coalition troops.

Canadian troops weren't involved in the men's deaths earlier this month. But a presentation made by Canadian soldiers to compensate their families won the respect of several local elders who say Canada should teach other international forces to respect Afghan customs.

"We know that when a suicide bomb hits a Canadian convoy, the Canadians aren't going to start shooting at everyone on the streets," said Kandahar's provincial governor Asadullah Khalid.

"But we must be able to say that of other forces as well."

...

"We feel that Canadian forces are different than other forces," said Khalid, "and the issue we have right now is to work with you and with international troops to find a solution to this problem."

Crow is best eaten fresh, Ms. Parrish, and goes particularly well with a slice of humble pie.

One last point of contention:

I do not support sending our troops to Afghanistan to bring western-style democracy to a country whose people don't appear to want to move that far, that fast.

I wonder why she thinks the Afghan people don't want our help? The elected government surely does, as indicated by the words of Hamid Karzai, Assadullah Khalid, Mohammed Zia, and others, who openly welcome our assistance and ask for more. The ordinary Afghans pictured in this post, and this one, and this one, also seem to value Canadian help getting their country back on its feet.

But the most effective rebuttal to Ms. Parrish's uninformed assertion is this poll of Afghan public opinion, released just last December, which shows that support for foreign troops in the country runs three to one Grateful to Unhappy (based upon a random national sample of 1,036 Afghan adults from 14-19 Oct, 2006, which apparently has a 3.5-point error margin).

I have one piece of advice for Carolyn Parrish, municipal councillor: either educate yourself on these issues so that you can contribute something of actual value to the national debate, or keep your garage door of a yap shut.

Honouring Our Troops

Another CANFORGEN has come out, announcing some of the honours the Governor-General intends to bestow upon our troops. I don't think they'll mind if I put the text up here, re-formatted for clarity.

01 14 251948Z JUL 07 RR UUUU CMP 054/07

NDHQ CMP OTTAWA
CANFORGEN

UNCLAS CANFORGEN 129/07 CMP 054/07

SIC WAK

SUBJ: HONOURS AND RECOGNITION

1. HER EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL HAS APPROVED NATIONAL HONOURS FOR THE FOL DESERVING INDIVIDUALS:

A. STAR OF MILITARY VALOUR

(1) CPL S. TEAL - DEMONSTRATED EXTRAORDINARY COURAGE WHEN HE BRAVED INTENSE ENEMY FIRE TO PROVIDE MEDICAL TREATMENT TO SEVERELY WOUNDED COMRADES, C COY, TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, 3 SEP 06

(2) PTE J.R. LAROCHELLE - DEMONSTRATED OUTSTANDING COURAGE WHEN HE PROVIDED COVER FIRE FOR AN UNDEFENDED FLANK OF HIS COY WHILE SEVERELY INJURED, 1 RCR BATTLE GROUP, TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, 14 OCT 06

B. MEDAL OF MILITARY VALOUR

(1) CAPT M.J. REEKIE - DEMONSTRATED OUTSTANDING COURAGE AND EXCEPTIONAL LEADERSHIP DURING AN INTENSE FIREFIGHT WITH TALIBAN INSURGENTS, A COY, 1 RCR BATTLE GROUP, TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, 19 AUG 06

(2) MCPL S.H. NIEFER - DEMONSTRATED OUTSTANDING COURAGE WHEN HE DROVE HIS VEHICLE INTO THE ENEMY KILL ZONE TO SUPPORT EXTRACTION OF WOUNDED COMRADES, C COY, 1 RCR BATTLE GROUP, TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, 3 SEP 06

(3) CPL C.G. CHEVREFILS - DEMONSTRATED OUTSTANDING COURAGE DURING A THREE HOUR FIREFIGHT WITH TALIBAN FORCES, A COY, 1 RCR BATTLE GROUP, TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, 19 AUG 06

(4) CPL J. FUNNELL - DEMONSTRATED OUTSTANDING COURAGE WHEN, UNDER INTENSE ENEMY FIRE, HE ASSISTED COMRADES TRAPPED IN AN ENEMY KILL ZONE, C COY, 1 RCR BATTLE GROUP, TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, 3 SEP 06

(5) CPL C.J. ORR - DEMONSTRATED OUTSTANDING COURAGE WHEN HE PLACED HIMSELF AT GREAT RISK TO RECOVER A LAV WHILE UNDER DIRECT ENEMY FIRE, 1 RCR BATTLE GROUP, TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, 3 SEP 06

(6) CPL J.J.L. RUFFOLO - DEMONSTRATED OUTSTANDING COURAGE WHEN HE EXPOSED HIMSELF TO ENEMY FIRE TO RENDER FIRST AID TO A CASUALTY, C COY, 1 RCR BATTLE GROUP, TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, 3 SEP 06

(7) PTE M.P. O'ROURKE - DEMONSTRATED OUTSTANDING COURAGE WHEN HE ASSISTED IN TREATMENT AND EVACUATION OF HIS COMRADES WHILE UNDER INTENSE ENEMY FIRE, C COY, 1 RCR BATTLE GROUP, TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, 3 SEP 06

C. MERITORIOUS SERVICE CROSS

(1) GEN J.L. JONES (USMC) - PROVIDED OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP TO NATO AND CDN TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN AT A CRITICAL TIME IN THE ALLIANCE'S HISTORY

(2) GEN P.J. SCHOOMAKER (US ARMY) - AS COS US ARMY IN 2006, FOR PROVIDING OUTSTANDING SUPPORT TO CANADIAN TROOPS DEPLOYING TO AFGHANISTAN

(3) LGEN K.W. EIKENBERRY (US ARMY) - AS THE COMMANDING GENERAL,COMBINED FORCES COMMAND, AFGHANISTAN, PLAYED A CENTRAL ROLE IN CANADA'S SUCCESS IN THE SOUTH OF AFGHANISTAN IN 2006

(4) BGEN G.J.P. O'BRIEN - FOR OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND COMMITMENT AS DEPUTY COMMANDING GENERAL FOR POLITICAL INTEGRATION IN THE COMBINED SECURITY TRANSITION COMMAND, JOINT TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, MAR TO DEC 06

D. MERITORIOUS SERVICE MEDAL

(1) HCOL B.A. VAN RUITEN - FOR OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALISM AND LEADERSHIP DURING HIS 13 YEAR TERM AS HONORARY COLONEL OF 17 WING

(2) MAJ C.A. BAKER - FOR OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE IN PLANNING AND EXECUTING NATO EXERCISE STEADFAST JAGUAR, JUL 05 TO JUL 06

(3) MWO D. ELDER - FOR OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALISM AND LEADERSHIP WHILE SERVING WITH THE MILITARY SECURITY DETACHMENT KABUL, JUL 04 TO JUL 05

E. MENTION IN DISPATCHES

(1) MWO R.J. MONTAGUE, MCPL W. TIERNAY, CPL J.C. BROPHY AND CPL M. TODOROVIC, FOR COURAGEOUS ACTIONS DEMONSTRATED WHEN THEY ASSISTED IN THE RECOVERY OF A VEHICLE AND PREVENTED FURTHER CASUALTIES, WHILE UNDER ENEMY FIRE, 1 RCR BATTLE GROUP, TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, ON 14 OCT 06

(2) SGT V.B. ADAMS - FOR LEADERSHIP UNDER ENEMY FIRE WHILE DEPLOYED WITH A COY, 1 RCR BATTLE GROUP, TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, 19 AUG 06

(3) SGT D.J. HOLLEY - FOR LEADERSHIP AND ENCOURAGEMENT DURING AN INTENSE FIREFIGHT AGAINST TALIBAN FORCES WHILE DEPLOYED WITH A COY, 1 RCR BATTLE GROUP, TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, 19 AUG 06

(4) MCPL R.J. HARRIS - FOR DECISIVE AND COURAGEOUS ACTION UNDER ENEMY FIRE WHILE DEPLOYED WITH 1 RCR BATTLE GROUP, TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, 3 OCT 06

(5) MCPL D.W.A. ORVIS - FOR COURAGE AND LEADERSHIP AS A MEMBER OF C COY, 1 RCR BATTLE GROUP, WHEN HIS SECTION CAME UNDER INTENSE ENEMY ATTACK, TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, 3 SEP 06

(6) CPL W.J. ELLIOT, CPL N.J. GREGG, PTE T.D. WILKINS - FOR COURAGEOUS AND SKILFUL ACTION AS MEMBERS OF A COY, 1 RCR BATTLE GROUP, DURING AN INTENSE FIREFIGHT AGAINST TALIBAN FORCES TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, 19 AUG 06

2. I AM ALSO PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE CF AWARDS TO THE FOL DESERVING INDIVIDUALS

A. CDS COMMENDATION

(1) MAJ J.C. TAYLOR (US ARMY) - FOR PROFESSIONALISM WHILE SERVING AS SENIOR US MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY CARE DEPARTMENT, ROLE 3 MULTI-NATIONAL MEDICAL UNIT, KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN, FEB TO NOV 06

(2) CAPO DE PRIMA CLASSE S.A. MASIELLO - FOR PROFESSIONALISM WHILE PROVIDING INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT TO MARITIME OPERATIONS, COMBINED NAVAL FORCES CENTRAL COMMAND INTELLIGENCE FUSION CELL, MANANA, BAHRAIN

(3) CPO2 M.C. FELTHAM - FOR PROFESSIONALISM AS UNIT CHIEF OF STANDING NATO MARITIME GROUP 1, JAN 06 TO JAN 07

(4) SSGT D. GAINES (US ARMY) - FOR OUTSTANDING PROFESSIONALISM AND LEADERSHIP WHILE SERVING AS SENIOR NCO IN CHARGE, PATIENT ADMIN DEPARTMENT, ROLE 3 MULTI-NATIONAL MEDICAL UNIT, KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN, FEB TO NOV 06

B. CF MEDALLION FOR DISTINGUISHED SERVICE

(1) MR C. WOODWARD - FOR DEDICATION AND PROFESSIONALISM FOR IMPROVING THE WELFARE OF CANADIAN SOLDERS DEPLOYED TO AFGHANISTAN, JOINT TASK FORCE AFGHANISTAN, ROTO 2, CF PERSONNEL SUPPORT AGENCY, 2006

(2) MR G. TRUDEL - FOR PROFESSIONALISM AND EXEMPLARY WORK ETHIC DURING THE SET UP, OPENING AND OPERATION OF THE TIM HORTON'S OUTLET AT KANDAHAR AIR BASE, AFGHANISTAN, MAY TO DEC 06

(3) MRS E. FINKLE - FOR COMMITMENT AND DEVOTION TO THE CONTINUING EDUCATION OF THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE CANADIAN FORCES

Brooks' Addendum: Original announcement from April here, pictures here.

"So this is what Canada’s new international role will be: back-seat driver."

An e-mail by the Executive Director of the Conference of Defence Associations (no actual link):

Please circulate/Prière de circuler

The Conference of Defence Associations would like to draw your attention to an editorial by André Pratte, published in the July 24th edition of La Presse. The original French text may be found at this link.

In view of the importance we attach to Pratte’s powerful message, we have had this article translated into English (see below).

M Pratte raises some very key points about the perceptions of Canada’s mission to Afghanistan, including the need for clear communication regarding the future of the mission itself. In the same vein, the arguments now being made in the Netherlands about the future of the Dutch mission post-2008 will surely have an impact on the Canadian debate later on this year (see link below to an article by Bruce Campion-Smith that discusses the Dutch matter specifically)

There is also a need for the government to express its intentions regarding the Canadian Forces itself. For example, it is important to remember that even if Canada’s troops in Kandahar province are eventually to be held “in reserve” (as mentioned by Minister O’Connor earlier this week), they will still very much be a vital component of the battle. A strategic reserve that is mobile and carries a big punch can make a major difference between defeat and victory, particularly when an inexperienced army such as the ANA takes on the Taliban.

M Pratte’s piece is a true “cri de coeur” for Canada’s future role in the world, particularly where he states “Si nous rejetons toute mission militaire où la victoire n'est pas à la fois instantanée et sans victimes, quel rôle voyons-nous pour nos soldats? Et pour le Canada dans le monde?"

(If we reject any military mission in which victory is not both instantaneous and achieved without casualties, what role do we see for our soldiers? And for Canada in the world?)

His answer is particularly noteworthy:

“Si les Canadiens s'en tiennent à leur vision fleur bleue de la sécurité mondiale, ils choisiront de rester les bras croisés devant les génocides, les guerres civiles et les complots terroristes, tout en multipliant les voeux pieux, une tradition bien canadienne. Telle sera donc la nouvelle mission internationale du Canada: gérant d'estrade."

(If Canadians cling to their romantic vision of world security, they choose to put their hands in their pockets in the face of genocide, civil war and terrorist conspiracies, while spouting pious promises – a very Canadian tradition. So this is what Canada’s new international role will be: back-seat driver)

Although we strongly agree with M Pratte’s conclusion that a withdrawal from Afghanistan post-February 2009 will result in Canada becoming a backseat driver in international affairs, the CDA does not necessarily agree with M Pratte’s view that the mission to Afghanistan is finished. We are of the view that given the amount of time, talent, reputation and money that Canada has invested in the mission to Afghanistan, we should be focusing on recalibrating the mission in order to achieve our goals in Afghanistan. Effectively communicating the whys and wherefores of the Canadian mission to Afghanistan to the Canadian public must be the highest priority of the Harper government in the months ahead.

Alain Pellerin
Colonel (ret’d)
Executive Director
613-236-1252

Bruce Campion-Smith. “Dutch pullout from Afghanistan would sway Canadian debate”.

PUBLICATION:

La Presse
DATE:
2007.07.24
SECTION:
Forum
PAGE:
A14
COLUMN:

Editorial

BYLINE:
André Pratte

Mission finished!

Canada’s soldiers have yet to reach the end of their ordeal. It’s almost certain that more of them will lose their lives, but we can already say that the Canadian Forces mission in southern Afghanistan is finished. Not accomplished; finished. That is to say, the die is cast.

The Harper government has abandoned any idea of extending it beyond February 2009. Its sole concern now is to limit the losses — political and human alike — between now and that deadline. This became obvious on Sunday during an interview the Defence Minister gave on CTV (Question Period). Gordon O’Connor predicted that in six months, the Afghan army will be responsible for most military operations in the Kandahar region with Canadian soldiers “in reserve”.

A year and a half ago, on the same program, Mr. O’Connor was asked about survey results indicating that a majority of Canadians opposed the Afghan mission. The newly appointed minister said, “This survey shows me that I have a great deal of work to do. I must begin explaining to Canadians why we are in Afghanistan and make them aware of the good work that we are doing.” Evidently Mr O’Connor’s explanations haven’t done the job, and he himself admitted his failure on Sunday: “I think in many cases, people do not understand what’s going on in Afghanistan, the needs there. And the successes that we’re having both in operations and in development.”

Misunderstanding, you think? More like incredulity. Canadians quite simply do not believe what the government says about this topic. They have the impression that the Canadian Armed Forces are fighting for nothing, that Ottawa is dancing to George Bush’s tune, that not enough resources are going to reconstruction. The facts do not support this perception, but the Harper government has not figured out how to convince people of this.

In the collapse of public support for the Afghan mission there is material to ponder. If Canadians refuse to allow their soldiers to fight alongside the Americans, under what circumstances will they ever be allowed to deploy on operations again? It’s a rare international mission in which the Americans do not play a leading role.

If UN caution is not good enough for us, from what authority will we seek a blessing to assure ourselves that an armed intervention is the right thing to do?

If we reject any military mission in which victory is not both instantaneous and achieved without casualties, what role do we see for our soldiers? And for Canada in the world?

As well as being pacifist, an attitude many consider noble, Canadian citizens seem to have become extraordinarily naïve. According to a recent survey, six of 10 Canadians want NATO to open negotiations with the Taliban to bring an end to confrontation. Negotiate with the Taliban? Mr Harper could also invite Omar bin Laden to tea at 24 Sussex Drive.

Canadian soldiers are, in a way, victims of a myth that they themselves helped build: the belief that Canada’s role in the world is that of peacekeeper. For years, we have promoted our soldiers’ participation in UN peacekeeping missions to the exclusion of all other operations. But the world changed and, with it, the missions we called peacekeeping; however, most Canadians remain content with a simplistic version of the Pearson philosophy.

It took decades to get the international community to accept that national sovereignty must not be used to cover up widespread massacres, that there is such a thing as a “responsibility to protect”. This advance was achieved in large part through the efforts of the Government of Canada (under Jean Chrétien and Lloyd Axworthy). If Canadians cling to their romantic vision of world security, they choose to put their hands in the pockets in the face of genocide, civil war and terrorist conspiracies, while spouting pious promises — a very Canadian tradition.

So this is what Canada’s new international role will be: back-seat driver.

apratte@lapresse.ca

Gustave Daniel Alfred Biéler DSO, MBE (1904 – September 6, 1944)

Even Nazis hailed courage

On Sunday, along a remnant wall of the cell block where the 40-year-old Canadian and 14 other Allied agents were held before their executions as saboteurs in occupied France, a memorial to their heroics was unveiled.

Dignitaries watched and tears flowed among the men's relatives -- including Bieler's 70-year-old daughter, Jacqueline, from Ottawa.

"I am proud of my father and his moral clarity and his strong resistance to the prevailing Nazi winds," she told CanWest News Service on Wednesday after her return from Germany.

Gustave Daniel Alfred Biéler DSO, MBE (1904 – September 6, 1944) - one of Canada's many unsung heroes.

"Sleep is a crutch"

When I was at RMC, a senior named Hedrick used to triple brew his coffee - that is, pour brewed coffee into the water reservoir and brew it through fresh grounds...twice. He did that because he was a FAMER, which was some weird acronym for Chem Eng, and because he liked the rep that went with triple-brewed sludge in his thermos.

Well, thanks to a tip from the good folks at Op-For, Hedrick - wherever he is these days - now has a way of getting his caffeine fix without destroying a coffee-maker every couple of months. It's called Ranger Coffee:

A few years ago, it dawned on Zach Thomas that coffee didn't have enough caffeine. At the time, he was pulling all-nighters as a student at the United States Military Academy at West Point. By the time he became an instructor at the U.S. Army Ranger School in Fort Benning, Ga., he lived by a common saying at his school: "Sleep is a crutch." "I used to just drink a pot of coffee, but then you have to go to the bathroom 100 times during the day. If you could just get more caffeine in one cup, then that would be the best of both worlds," he says. In 2005 Thomas, now 30, founded Ranger Coffee, with a "hypercaffeinated" blend that contains double the caffeine of regular coffee, or about 300 milligrams per 12-ounce serving—the equivalent of six Diet Cokes. The small, Rockmart, Ga.-based company sells 1,700 bags of coffee a year, nearly half of them to troops stationed in Iraq.

This java actually uses the caffeine that's removed from decaffeinated coffee, spraying it on to Ranger Coffee to boost your juice-factor - apparently without compromising on taste, if the company's promo material is to be believed. And I ask: would a Ranger lie to you?

Liquid obsidian gold, ladies and gents.

Artwork From Kandahar

Okay, how many of you knew that there was a war artist in Kandahar?

His name is Richard Johnson, he works for the National Post, and he's been blogging about his experiences in Afghanistan. It's absolutely amazing what he can do with lead and paper; in order to get the full impact, check out his gallery page.

Apparently he's wrapping up his tour. I hope that, once he gets back, the Canadian War Museum gives him a call.

No pork alert

Oh dear, what will the Tories do?

The Conservative government's $200-million plan to refurbish almost half of the 100 surplus Leopard 2 tanks being purchased from the Dutch has hit a snag.

There's currently no company in Canada capable of quickly improving up to 40 Leopard 2A4 armoured vehicles in order to meet the rigours and dangers of Afghanistan.

An undetermined portion of the contract will likely have to carried out overseas, says a senior defence official.

"Obviously, we'd like to do as much of it in Canada as possible but, of course, we currently don't have any capability in Canada to do heavy armoured vehicle work, and so there is consultation with industry taking place," Dan Ross, assistant deputy minister of materiel at National Defence, said in an interview with The Canadian Press...

As part of the initial purchase phase, roughly $200 million was set aside to upgrade the used tanks, primarily with air conditioning and better armour, meant to withstand roadside bombs. Both O'Connor and Fortier said Canadian industry would see great benefits...

What the new "Air Expeditionary Wing" at Bagotville may be all about

Further to this post, I've now come across something I'd forgotten that may explain how the trick will be done (credit to David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen for receiving a leaked document):

...the 439 Combat Support Squadron at Canadian Forces Base Bagotville, Que., will be expanded and redesignated as an "expeditionary" unit to better support domestic and international operations. In particular, the squadron would support deployments of the military's rapid-reaction Disaster Assistance Response Team...

CDS takes on silly Conservative campaign promises

This sure needs a lot of guts; one can hardly call Gen. Hillier partisan now:

The federal Conservatives' campaign promise to create new army units across the country appears to be in doubt after the country's top soldier suggested the proposed units are unnecessary.

The Conservative party's Canada First defence plan included proposals to establish a new airborne regiment and as many as 14 territorial defence battalions stationed in cities across the country.

But in an exclusive interview with CBC News, Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier says some of the proposed new units are unnecessary.

Hillier said there are no plans to revive the airborne regiment, which was disbanded in 1995 after Canadian soldiers beat a Somali teenager to death during a peacekeeping deployment to the African country.

"We're meeting all the operational demands that we would possibly have to meet with an airborne capability right now," said Hillier.

Each of Canada's three regular force infantry units fields a company of about 120 paratroopers, he said.

As well, every soldier posted to the new Canadian Special Operations regiment is qualified as an airborne trooper, said Hillier. Set up in 2006, the Petawawa-based regiment supports regular and special forces, including the top-secret Joint Task Force 2.

The general also poured cold water on Conservative plans to create up to 14 territorial defence battalions.

"We're not in the business of creating new units. We have sufficient units [hmmm - MC]," he said.

Under the Tory plan, each unit was to be made up of 100 regular and 400 reserve force personnel. A 2006 news release from Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said the proposed battalions would be "the first line of response to any disaster."

However, Hillier did say the military has decided to revamp its existing reserves to help meet the spirit of the Conservative promise...

The general has some spirit indeed.

An earlier post of mine on the subject (taking a certain journalist to task), plus a discussion thread at Milnet.ca.

Update: A Globe and Mail story.

Afstan: Weasel words from the Bundeswehr

Their top general squirms a bit when closely questioned about the German military's role--lots of familiar rings:

Schneiderhan: Naturally our enemies are familiar with the discussion in Germany. They aren't exactly living in the Stone Age. They read newspapers and they probably read SPIEGEL ONLINE more quickly than I do. If they see a chance to damage the solidarity within the international community because the Germans immediately enter into a fundamental discussion calling the whole operation into question whenever something like the Kunduz attack happens, then they exploit that opportunity.

SPIEGEL: The threat against Germans is described as "considerable" in situation reports coming from Afghanistan. Do you anticipate further attacks leading up to the parliamentary decisions in September about Germany's Afghanistan mission?

Schneiderhan: It's certainly something I cannot rule out. We are dealing with enemies who do not abide by any of our legal or even moral rules of engagement, and who have only one goal: To spread fear and terror, and thus force us to give in or withdraw...

SPIEGEL: Opinion polls show that the tactic is working. The majority of Germans want German forces to withdraw [emphasis added] from Afghanistan. Many members of parliament plan to vote this fall for an extension of the NATO mandate for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), but not for Germany's continued participation in the counterterrorism operation [the Germans have some 100 special forces fighting under US command]...

SPIEGEL: You could soon be providing even more support -- by sending troops to the more volatile south.

Schneiderhan: We have no intention of doing so. This is not open for discussion.

SPIEGEL: Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier is already pushing for such a move.

Schneiderhan: The foreign minister has said that he wants to hear the military's recommendations first. We are discussing the issue with him for that purpose. We do agree that we need to and want to improve the training of Afghan security forces.

SPIEGEL: Does this also apply to the south?

Schneiderhan: My concern lies with the northern region, because that's the area for which we are responsible. The attack in Kunduz demonstrated that we do not have any stabile Afghan security forces around our bases. There is an urgent need for local police and military forces. We are very happy to train them, and we are even prepared to do so in regions where neither ISAF nor Afghan security forces are at the moment. Two of the nine northern provinces are bigger than (the German state of) Hesse! Our goal is security in the whole of Afghanistan...

SPIEGEL: Nevertheless, the allies are pushing for German troops to be deployed to the front in the south.

Schneiderhan: And they're certainly free to do so. But just imagine the public debate in Germany if a German training team were to accompany Afghans into the interior to fight other Afghans. The Germans get involved in the fighting and call in air support. OEF sends in planes and there are innocent civilian casualties. I shudder to think what the reaction in Berlin would be.

SPIEGEL: Is Germany's highest-ranking military commander advising against a deployment in the south merely because this would be unacceptable to the German public?

Schneiderhan: No. My argument is based more on a military perspective. But if you're saying that the Germans should finally go south to improve their image, then we could end up paying a high price. The level of danger in the north is already high enough for me [emphasis added] to fear the worst every time the telephone rings at an unusual hour. We shouldn't be trying to do everything at once. The real question is much more: Where exactly is the "front" when you are fighting an asymmetrical conflict with terrorists? [funny--I thought the fighting front was in the south and, to a lesser extent, the east--MC]..

To summarize: "Hell no, we won't go [south]." Here's another type of weasel.

The Dutch parliament will also have to vote this year, on whether to extend their combat mission in Uruzgan province.

NATO--including us--really is wibbly wobbly. The Jihadis must really be thinking they are the strong horse; Muslims generally must be wondering where to place their bets for the long term.

A400M shocker

Surprise (text subscriber only)!

Aviation Week & Space Technology
07/23/2007, page 19

EADS CEO Louis Gallois says delays with the TP400 turboprop engine that will power the Airbus A400M airlifter are likely to lead to a deferral of the first flight, which has been scheduled for late March 2008. Test problems already have delayed the initial flight of the engine on a C-130 testbed to the third or first quarter of this year (AW&ST June 11, p. 36). However, initial deliveries should still take place by late 2009, Gallois says.

Place your bets. I'm still wondering what Daniel Leblanc of the Globe and Mail and David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen are reading.

The home front

I haven't been particularly impressed with Don Martin's reporting from Afghanistan so far but this article is an insightful one, and deals with an issue that deserves more attention:

Living in one of the world's harshest environments in sweltering and dangerous southern Afghanistan can be a snap compared to reconnecting with a family that has adapted to the soldier of the house not being around.

Finding all the traditional tasks reserved for the man of the house now being done with relative ease by the spouse and children can be tough on the alpha-male ego. Ditto for the female soldier who finds her spouse has taken over motherhood and child-rearing responsibilities.

Statistics are hard to come by, but one study of U.S. soldiers in 2005 put the returning infantry divorce rate at almost 20 per cent.

"I see it all the time," says Sgt.-Maj. Wayne O'Toole, a 30-year military veteran. "It can start right at the airport. He goes to hop into his truck and she takes the wheel because that's what she's done for the last six months. She thinks she's doing him a favour by driving him home, but he really, really wants to drive his truck again. Then the fighting starts."

While the CF has gotten much better at dealing with "soft" issues like PTSD and home-work balance since I was in, it still has an awfully long way to go:

About once a week, David would quietly leave his office, drive a half-hour away and change out of his uniform before sitting down with a doctor for a regular appointment.

For months, the young soldier ventured far from his military base in Edmonton to seek help for a problem that had robbed him of his sense of humour and left him haunted by memories of comrades’ bodies being loaded into helicopters in the deserts of Afghanistan.

It was a hassle, but it was the only way he felt he could get the treatment he needed without facing repercussions from a military he and others say is failing soldiers traumatized by the rigours of war.

"They’ve made it impossible," David, who insisted on using a pseudonym, said in an interview from his Edmonton home.

"I had to drop my treatment because I couldn’t get the time off from work and I was embarrassed to tell the people I work with. Once you start going to see someone to help you out, they treat you like you can’t do your job no more.

"You come home and you almost feel like the army’s turning its back on you."

This soldier's experience may be atypical, but I know of too many who have slipped through the system's cracks in other ways to be entirely convinced of that.

Pitter, patter, folks.

Ostie de niaseux...

My experience, as an anglo in the CF, was the exact opposite of this fellow's:

Complaints have abounded that the public service language tests, administered to Forces personnel, are skewed so that an anglophone must be perfectly fluent in the Quebec French dialect in order to pass, while broken English will enable a francophone to qualify as bilingual.

When I was at RMC in the early 90's - an institution that requires functional bilingualism in order to obtain one's degree - it was widely acknowledged that on a five-point scale (one no longer in use), anglos had at least a point advantage over their franco counterparts. I always assumed the higher standard for francophones was because it was easier to learn english immersed in it in Kingston than it was to learn french in a predominantly english community. But the bias was clear and obvious - and precisely the opposite of what the retired officer is saying above.

Obviously, your mileage may vary.

"No mission shift in Afghanistan"

Further to Babbling's post, here is a letter of mine in the National Post (they edited out a mention of the facts in this CTV story).

Well-deserved recognition

Blogger Bruce Rolston (Flit) makes it into a National Post editorial on Afstan:

Most provinces, too, have fewer combat deaths, or deaths from terrorist activity than even two years ago. The map below by blogger Bruce Rolston shows that the deaths of NATO troops are concentrated primarily in just two of the nation's provinces...

"Winning in Afghanistan"

A piece in Maclean's by Sean M. Maloney (a professor at the Royal Military College) that's well worth reading, with some excellent combat reporting. Note the role of the Afghan National Army (read that Scott Taylor). An excerpt that reinforces what we've been saying at The Torch:

...The combined effects of last summer's operations in Zharey district, the blunting of the enemy's fall offensive, and the anti-leadership campaign that killed enemy commander Mullah Dadullah, have set the conditions for today's mission...

...Officially, there are 20 confirmed enemy dead, probably more, but the effects of this operation are greater than the body count. An IED cell has been taken down [emphasis added - MC]. It could take the enemy weeks or even months to replace it. There were no civilian casualties. Highway 1 is more secure, for the time being. The Taliban were forced to commit scarce resources to this fight, which can no longer be used against Kandahar city...

Success would soon be overtaken by tragedy. Even as that June 20 battle in Zharey was still raging, in the neighbouring Panjwai district three soldiers from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry were killed in a massive explosion as their M-Gator vehicle hit a cleverly laid mine stack. Was this designed to draw resources away from the Howz-e Madad fight? It's unclear. But it was the biggest single-day death toll for Canadians since April 8, and it would be the exclusive focus of media reports from Afghanistan on that day. The success of the morning's operation in Zharey would be completely ignored [emphasis added]...

...I met a group of friends for chai in Kandahar city, and asked Rashid, whom I have known for five years, what was qualitatively different. (The names of the Afghans have been changed at their request. The fear of retribution by the Taliban remains real.) "Kandahar seems more secure than even last year," Rashid said. "Families aren't leaving like they were. There are more children around. I really notice the police presence, especially their vehicles and the checkpoints. We know they're still pretty corrupt, there are still bombings, but there is at least a feeling of security." Mohammad interjects as the chai is passed around: "The big threat last summer from the districts west of the city is gone. It is not looming like it was. We can get on with our lives. There isn't this feeling of imminent peril."..

...the more critical battle -- the enemy's fight to destroy Canadian resolve -- will continue. The only way the Taliban can succeed is to generate doubt and fear in Canada, and hope that those Canadians opposed to helping the Afghan people are able to generate a consensus for withdrawal. The only tool the Taliban have right now to accomplish this is a mass-casualty-producing attack like the one that killed six soldiers on July 4. There's little doubt that the Taliban know that Canadian sentiment is wavering, and that such attacks affect public opinion. More importantly, they're aware that support for the mission is weakest in Quebec, and that a battalion from Quebec is on its way. The anticipated deployment of those troops and the divisions in that province over this war (like divisions in Quebec over other wars in Canadian history) will not be lost on the al-Qaeda-funded analysts supporting the Taliban war effort.

Given the improving socio-economic situation in Kandahar province, withdrawing now would be like retreating from the beachhead in Normandy immediately after landing. Canada has sacrificed too much to pull out when those incremental measures we've talked about for two years are just starting to have an effect.

Certainly not what one would think from watching CTV or CBC. Or reading the major media most of the time. Doesn't fit with inside Ottawa political bloodsport.

Inform yourself, then brace yourself

Yet again, Bruce Rolston at Flit has knocked the proverbial nail squarely on the noggin - while I have excerpted below at length, you really should read the whole piece:

As for Fife and the rest of the CTV team behind that piece, who, if they were ever pointed to this document, apparently failed to keep their lips moving past the third page, I fear they're beyond redemption. It seems almost all public disapproval of this mission in the Canadian context is an argument from ignorance, fuelled by ignorant media. There are some interesting discussions we might be having about Afghanistan's future, about NATO's future, about the future of Western counter-insurgency in this context, but it's all quite moot because the baseline public awareness and understanding levels here are simply too low for that dialogue to have any public value. The primary fight at home is not against timidity; it's against ignorance.

Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has it right. One can support the troops without supporting a war: by activism to ensure they have the tools to do the job, and to "try our hardest to be the best and most informed citizens that we can be". I think most soldiers overseas would consider themselves supported -- and would understand the public's conclusions about the futility or utility of their missions -- if they thought the population at home took those two, and only those two, responsibilities of their citizenship seriously.

There's one point Bruce makes that I'd like to comment upon in further detail. I agree with him that the primary fight that needs to take place is against domestic ignorance. Without an informed public, I doubt we can move forward on any number of issues, including Afghanistan.

But I wonder if there isn't more to the public opinion polls than simple ignorance. I wonder if there's a subconscious tendency to avoid information that would require Canadians to step out of our comfortable lives, largely insulated from the more dangerous aspects of the wider world, and take a more robust position. I wonder if we, as a people, value peace over justice - as though the two could ever be separated in the long-term. I wonder if, in the absence of an informed opinion, we default to timidity and inaction. I wonder if we're too fat and happy in our little gated community north of the 49th, with oceans for a moat and the world's policeman as a next door neighbour.

In light of our unwillingness to delve beyond the predictable soundbites and headlines of our established media organizations - whose only purpose is to sell more advertising by telling us what they think we want to hear - I wonder if there's any set of circumstances that would have Canadians rearing up on our hind legs and charging into a fray.

I can think of only two scenarios that leave me confident Canada would fight for its interests. One is an invasion of our own shores - I think we'd want to fight, at least at first (whether we'd have the stomach to fight on if we were overmatched from the start is another matter). The other is what I'd term a 'consensus fight' - a mission that much of the world took on. I think in that case we'd be looking not to get left out.

What I don't see is a desire to stand on our convictions, even if we knew what they were, alone in the world if need be. Oh, we have some fine individuals and organizations here in Canada, but I'd liken us less to the fellow who sees a house burning and charges into the flames and smoke to rescue the inhabitants, and more to the fellow who stands on the sidewalk and shouts "Somebody, do something!" (We'd take a corner of a blanket, I'm sure, but only if asked - we wouldn't organize it ourselves.)

In fact, I wonder if that's not almost as much of a problem as our willful ignorance in the case of Afghanistan: we supported it when it was a 'consensus mission', regardless of what we did or didn't know about the country, and now that we see other nations getting cold feet, we're not interested in staying our course. That's probably because we never thought of it as our course, a Canadian course, but rather a 'consensus' course.

We all know people who are brave when they're part of a group, but whose courage fades away when their friends do. I had hoped Canada aspired to more than that.

Update: Case in point:

The so-called "war on terror" will not be won on a battlefield; it will be resolved through economic development, fair trade practices, strategic assistance and respectful negotiation.

Like slavery, subjugation of women and eugenics, the age of war has come and gone. It will not be missed.

Anyone else find the unintentional irony of arguing against our mission in Afghanistan while simultaneously putting forth the lie that the "subjugation of women...has come and gone" is a bit too much to stomach today? I certainly do.

This is the sort of idiot who would be frantically trying to appease his captors even as the butcher's knife was drawn across his throat, and with his dying thought would still not understand that evil needs to be fought, not negotiated with.

Upperdate: Kate Heartfield, in the Ottawa Citizen, neatly lays out a Darfur argument that dovetails with this post's discussion of Canadian will on the topic of Afghanistan:

Of course, it's easy for Canadians to tut-tut about China, but less easy for a dinner-party's worth of Canadians to agree on what kinds of military intervention are acceptable. Are we willing to send Canadian soldiers (assuming we had them to spare) into danger?

We're going to have to get willing if we're going to stop future Darfurs. You can't protect a bully's victim without facing the bully. It is difficult to stop people from dying without offending the killers.

...

But the humanitarian organizations on the ground say a no-fly zone would make their work impossible. They need to use the air space, and relief agencies anywhere depend on a certain amount of goodwill, or at least indifference, from local authorities. Understandably, they don't want to do anything to anger them.

It's a reasonable position, but ultimately irreconcilable with the Responsibility to Protect.

...

Here's the crux of the problem: The Responsibility to Protect is always going to be popular in principle, and almost never going to be popular in practice. Implementing it requires a slightly quixotic approach to foreign affairs, a willingness to give offence and take a few risks, when the alternatives are horrifying.

The details may differ from case to case, but before we deal with those, Canadians need to come to grips with the underlying principle: either we understand that difficult problems require difficult, costly, and sometimes unpalatable solutions in the real world, or we don't. All the normal cliches apply - rubber meeting road, money where the mouth is, all hat and no cattle. As a nation, we need to get serious.

I seriously doubt we have a political figure on stage now or in our immediate future who can lead us there.