Thursday, January 31, 2008

Not that there was a deep field of competition

Babbling may have swayed a few votes. Thank goodness he started all this:
Without much further ado - The Best Military Blog of 2007


Credit also: Chris Taylor, Paul Synnott, The Monarchist and The Phantom Observer.

May others leap into this field. Canada is a big country with many having expertise and interest in things military.

What the US may be up to in Pakistan

A story in the Asia Times (via tomahawk6):
US homes in on militants in Pakistan
Some salt may be required; nonetheless:
Senior Qaeda leader with links to Taliban is reported killed
More on the US and Pakistan here.

Update: And what if Pakistan goes fissiparous? That's a real worry in itself and because it might well mean the break-up of Afstan too:
...as matters stand, the Punjabi-dominated regime of Pervez Musharraf is headed for a bloody confrontation with the country’s Pashtun, Baluch and Sindhi minorities that could well lead to the breakup of Pakistan into three sovereign entities.

In that event, the Pashtuns, concentrated in the northwestern tribal areas, would join with their ethnic brethren across the Afghan border (some 40 million of them combined) to form an independent “Pashtunistan.” The Sindhis in the southeast, numbering 23 million, would unite with the six million Baluch tribesmen in the southwest to establish a federation along the Arabian Sea from India to Iran. “Pakistan” would then be a nuclear-armed Punjabi rump state.

In historical context, such a breakup would not be surprising. There had never been a national entity encompassing the areas now constituting Pakistan...

Selig S. Harrison is the director of the Asia program at the Center for International Policy and the author of “In Afghanistan’s Shadow,” a study of Baluch nationalism.

Sick puppies

Critically reviewing Afstan

A report from a high-powered American panel:
The international effort to stabilize Afghanistan is faltering and urgently needs thousands of additional U.S. and coalition troops, an influential group of American diplomatic and military experts concluded in a report issued Wednesday.

The independent study finds that the Taliban, which two years ago was largely viewed as a defeated movement, has been able to infiltrate and control sizable parts of southern and southeastern Afghanistan, leading to widespread disillusionment among Afghans with the mission.

"The prospect of again losing significant parts of Afghanistan to the forces of Islamic extremists has moved from the improbable to the possible," the study says, warning that Afghanistan could revert to a "failed state."

The report is critical of nearly every governmental and international organization involved in Afghanistan, including the Bush administration, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, calling their efforts inadequate, poorly coordinated and occasionally self-defeating.

Although many of the criticisms have been made before, the new study is spearheaded by some of the same experts and organizations involved in the Iraq Study Group, the influential panel whose report a year ago put intense pressure on the Bush administration to change course in Iraq.

The co-chairmen of the group are former NATO commander and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, and Thomas R. Pickering, a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. The two men have significant bipartisan standing in U.S. foreign policy circles, which could give the study a wider and more authoritative reach than other assessments...

The Afghanistan Study Group's criticisms of the Bush administration focus on the military mission. It welcomes the Pentagon's recent decision to send an additional 3,200 Marines, increasing the U.S. presence to about 28,000 troops. But it says the Pentagon should send additional troops as soon as they are freed from duty in Iraq...

"While the fates of the two countries are connected -- and a failure in Iraq would influence Afghanistan and vice versa -- tying together Afghanistan and Iraq also creates the false impression that they consist of the same mission, while in reality the challenges in these countries differ significantly," the report says.

The panel also calls on the White House to appoint a special envoy to Afghanistan to coordinate various efforts...

The report is equally critical of several NATO allies and notes that polls have shown that majorities in all coalition countries except Britain favor withdrawal of troops.

Although the report mostly shies away from singling out allies by name, it recommends that Germany be stripped of its responsibility for training the Afghan police [emphasis added] and called for the United States to take more of that responsibility.

It also advises the U.S. and NATO militaries to shift away from conventional warfare and toward a more sophisticated counterinsurgency campaign, warning that increasing civilian casualties are angering Afghans.

The findings echo recent remarks by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other senior Pentagon officials, who have said that NATO forces in southern Afghanistan have not been properly trained in counterinsurgency techniques...
More, from another high-powered panel:
NATO forces in Afghanistan are in a "strategic stalemate," as Taliban insurgents expand their control of sparsely populated areas and as the central government fails to carry out vital reforms and reconstruction, according to an independent assessment released yesterday by NATO's former commander.

"Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan," said the report by the Atlantic Council of the United States, chaired by retired Gen. James L. Jones, who until the summer of 2006 served as the supreme allied commander of NATO...

Jones said several steps are needed to "regain the momentum that appears to have been lost" in Afghanistan: a comprehensive campaign plan that integrates security and reconstruction work; the appointment of a United Nations High Commissioner to coordinate international efforts; and a new regional approach to stabilizing Afghanistan that would include conferences with neighboring countries such as Pakistan and Iran...
Definitely "glass half-empty" views, but good suggestions.

Barnett R. Rubin, who knows his Afstan (he's now in Kabul--here's an earlier Torch post noting his work), has a post on all this. The group blog to which he contributes has a lot of material on Afghan matters:
Informed Comment: Global Affairs

A columnist notices the UN Secretary General's support for the Afghan mission

Good on Lorrie Goldstein of the Sun papers:
UN chief gets it
What will it take for opposition to grasp Afghanistan mission?

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Afstan: The view of "The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung"

Further to this post, from Spiegel Online:
...
"Of course, it's easy for the Americans to point the finger at the other allies. But it's also true that it was in no way the case that all Europeans were convinced of the usefulness of the mission to Afghanistan in the first place. (It) is far away. The overthrow of the Taliban is already six years behind us, and yet the allies are preparing themselves to stay there for many more years. The burdens have already been enormous. There's no chance that voters are going to allow further adventures."
Same, I would say, with the Italian and Spanish publics. And maybe much of the Canadian. Think about the internal logic at the quote. No "usefulness"?

Afstan and area round-up from Conference of Defence Associations

Helicopters and UAVs are still not "on order"

David Pugliese of the Ottawa Citizen explains how the government may speed up acquisition:
The Canadian Forces will lease unmanned aerial vehicles for the Afghanistan mission and is in discussions with the U.S. government for early delivery of Chinook helicopters.

The two initiatives were quietly under way before the Manley report detailed them last week as a condition for continuation of the Afghan mission. Such equipment is seen by military leaders as vital in reducing the number of Canadian casualties, particularly from roadside bombs.

Details of the lease of long-range tactical UAVs to replace the existing Sperwer drones in Afghanistan is expected to be released to the defence industry in a month or so, according to industry officials.

Attempts to convince the U.S. military to divert some of its own order of Chinook helicopters for immediate Canadian use is ongoing and Canadian defence officials want to take their case for that right up to U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates.

The demand for Chinooks from the U.S. military and allied nations is high and the Boeing assembly line is producing the choppers as fast as it can. The largest order is for more than 450 Chinooks for the U.S. army, which has priority over other nations.

The Harper government announced in the summer of 2006 that it would purchase 16 Chinooks, but discussions for that helicopter deal have dragged on and a contract has yet to be signed. Even when it is signed later this year, delivery of the helicopters isn't expected until around 2011.

Last year, the air force recommended the purchase of the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle for use in Afghanistan, but members of the Harper cabinet derailed that proposal, citing concerns that yet another large-scale defence contract would be awarded to a U.S. firm [the concern appears not to have been the US firm per se but the fact that more sole-sourcing would have been controversial - MC]). Because of that, Canadian air force officials have now come up with a plan to lease UAVs for Kandahar...
The article goes on to outline the many difficulties in leasing UAVs.

A Boeing representative has already commented on fast-tracking the Chinooks:
Canada could...negotiate with Washington to snag some CH-47 Chinooks off the production line where they are now being made for the United States army, said Mark Kronenberg, vice-president of international business development for Boeing's defence business.

"There's going to have to be some government-to-government discussions. ... It's always in the realm of the doable when governments get together," he said in an interview.

Ottawa did a similar deal with Washington that allowed Canada's air force to take quick delivery of C-17 transport jets last year...
These clearly would be US-spec aircraft. That would mean giving up special "Canadianization" requirements that seem to have been a major factor in delaying our contract, along with the distribution of regional benefits.

Also, if we buy US versions our aircrew could be rapidly trained on them in the US (as is being done with our C-17s) and perhaps they could initially be serviced and maintained by US personnel in Afstan. That would allow fairly rapid deployment while Canadian groundcrew were trained and a supply/maintenance system set up. Though such a rapid capability creation would surely have disruptive effects on Griffin and Cormorant squadrons.

And would we eventually upgrade these Chinooks with the extra capabilites our military wants? Or try just to lease them for eventual return?

Update More background from a Canwest News story by Mr Pugliese and Mike Blanchfield:
In recent weeks, the federal government has approached European allies and major U.S. manufacturers for four to six aircraft, on a lease or loan basis, but has had no luck.

The government plans later this year to award a sole-sourced contract for 16 new CH-47 Chinook helicopters to the U.S. defence contractor Boeing, but because the first of those helicopters is not due to arrive until 2011, the military wants a temporary solution to the lack of air support in order to lessen the exposure of Canadian troops to deadly roadside bombs...

Now there is growing frustration within Defence Department headquarters over the delay in getting helicopters. Many are second-guessing a decision two years ago to pass on buying second-hand U.S. army Chinooks, while others are growing increasingly frustrated with the air force's position to hold out for the new fleet of customized Chinooks, instead of trying to find less deluxe versions that could be retrofitted for the battlefield in the coming year.

"They are looking into options," said a senior defence industry insider. "To accelerate the Chinooks or [by] going to other manufacturers to see what they have available or what can be made available."

Late last year, the government asked Germany if it could lend Canada four of its CH-53 transports. Germany was unable to do without any of the 18 specially retrofitted aircraft it currently rotates through Afghanistan because they are already being heavily used.

Germany offered less deluxe CH-53s that Canada could have had retrofitted with special filters to cope with southern Afghanistan's dusty climate as well as other features to protect the choppers from ground fire.

Upgrading the helicopters for Afghanistan could take anywhere from several months to a year.

Canada also approached Sikorsky Aircraft, the American company that makes the CH-53, but was told every aircraft the company has produced is now being used.

Some Defence Department insiders say the best option for getting a few new helicopters within the next year is to persuade Boeing to allow Canada to jump the queue on its current busy assembly line...

A Defence Department source blamed delays on the air force's desire to get a highly customized new fleet of the CH-47, instead of settling for a few "bare bones" versions of the helicopters in the short term.

"With the right amount of high-level political and military representation in Washington, we should be able to secure four to six airframes initially. Given that the Americans want us to stay in the south, they should be persuaded that giving up a few slots in the production line is a small price to pay to keep an important and trusted ally in the game," said the source...
Update: A comment at Milnet.ca explains the personnel and technical difficulties in getting any Canadian Chinooks rapidly operational.

No more pestering

Today's the last day to vote in the Canadian Blog Awards, so if you haven't already voted in the final round, I'd encourage you to take a moment now.

Thanks for your support, and for your patience with this marathon competition.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Afghan detainee delirium

Watch this interview with Maj.-Gen. (ret'd) Lewis MacKenzie on "Mike Duffy Live". Love that third rum and Coke on the beach.

Here's the relevant bit from a CTV News story:
...
According to Canadian Maj.-Gen. (Ret.) Lewis MacKenzie, the endless parliamentary uproar probably likely plays a role in the military's reason for keeping prisoner information to itself.

"Back in the Netherlands the people aren't hanging on every word the commander says," he told CTV's Mike Duffy Live on Tuesday evening, referring to one of three countries involved in the mission known to disclose prisoner information to its public.

"There are detainees being taken, they are being taken somewhere. I think commanders are getting somewhat teed off about how they're being micromanaged and micro-analyzed."

MacKenzie also responded to rumours the Kandahar airfield base -- which is staffed by many local citizens -- had been infiltrated by the Taliban.

"I can guarantee you it's been infiltrated," said the retired general. "There's never been a mission in my life where the locals don't infiltrate civilian staff.

"You assume you've been infiltrated," he added, noting a popular strategy is to disseminate false information throughout the base in order to fool those who may use it maliciously. "Some people back here seem to think (war is) some sort of sterile by-the-book type of activity. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way."..
Then there's the Star Trek perspective:
The Next Legal Frontier

Afstan: Enough said

This headline:
Canada would be first nation to abandon Afghanistan

Afstan: A few Germans for combat (sort of), in the north

If it comes to pass. Baby steps, but something:
NATO has formally asked Germany to provide combat troops to replace the Norwegian Quick Reaction Force in northern Afghanistan. With Canada warning it will pull out if there is not more support from its NATO allies, the German military may see its role in the country change significantly.

Germany may have managed to avoid the most dangerous fighting in Afghanistan so far, but with NATO asking it to send in combat troops and Canada threatening to withdraw if more allies don't come south, that may not be for long.

NATO has officially requested that Germany send combat troops to Afghanistan, a German Defense Ministry spokesman confirmed Tuesday. The request had been expected for some weeks and the German government had already indicated that it is ready to send the combat troops.

NATO is asking for up to 250 German soldiers to take over from the Norwegian Quick Reaction Force, which is stationed in the north of Afghanistan and is due to end its mission at the beginning of the summer. The Norwegian force has been responsible for providing security to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in the north.

The German government is expected to make its final decision at the beginning of February, and already insists that such a deployment is covered by the current mandate for Afghanistan. It says that the deployment would not differ fundamentally from the tasks currently carried out by the 3,500 German soldiers in relatively peaceful northern Afghanistan (more...). However, there have been concerns in Germany that this could mark a significant change in the role of the Bundeswehr, or German military, from the reconstruction and training tasks it has carried out up to now.

German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung, paying a surprise visit to Afghanistan on Tuesday, said a final decision had not been made [emphasis added]. He held talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Defense Minister Gen. Abdul Rahim Wardak and met with the ISAF commander Dan McNeill (more...), who said that a German mission in the north of the country would be an important contribution...

Operation Lomray Karhka ("Front Line")

A first-rate CBC slide-show, showing Canadian, Afghan and Gurkha troops in action on the operation, Canadian mentors patrolling with the ANA (the combat part of training), and everyday life in the countryside. Note the ANA Humvees in a photo near the end; a few photos are pretty gruesome. Pictures by embedded photographer Louie Palu, commentary by James Cudmore. Do watch it (via Baden Guy).

We need a much bigger army

Well, we could send 7,500 soldiers to Afstan, 3,000 of which would be available for field operations at any given moment. But apart from reinforcements for attrition and your regular military leave, they would have to stay there without relief until the mission is accomplished. Jeffrey Simpson:

Implicit in the Manley panel's report on Afghanistan is the apparently incontestable fact that Canada can only field 1,000 fighting soldiers at any moment.

That's all this G8 country of 33 million, blessed with one of the world's highest per capita incomes, can manage. Even then, we need foreign planes and use old equipment. It's a powerful signal of limited capability.

If Canada had more soldiers and equipment, it could have done what the Manley panel recommended: double the number of soldiers in Kandahar. But we don't have those soldiers. Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed it yesterday, in agreeing with the Manley task force that Canada seek the 1,000 extra fighting soldiers from another country.

Canada got to this state for many reasons, one of which is the need to spend on air and naval forces to protect North America. But beyond those operational factors, Canadians had come to see our army as a blue-helmeted force of peacekeepers, occasionally in danger but mostly handing out candies to schoolchildren, patrolling fixed borders and being firm but nice; the kind of soldiers on the peacekeeping monument in Ottawa, one of whom peers through binoculars, while another sends radio signals, but none of whom looks ready to fight...
The need to spend on air and naval forces is not a reason for having a small regular army. That would be like saying we neglected to hire enough prison guards because of the need to spend on prisons. The fact that successive governments chose not to invest enough in military manpower is the only reason why we got to the state we are in. The "decade of darkness", as it were, coming home to roost.

Monday, January 28, 2008

Prime Minister Harper misspeaks

I guess he's following the lead of his communications director. The prime minister has given a statement supporting the recommendations of the Manley panel (video here). Then, near the end of answering questions from the media (around 1241 Eastern Time), he either lied or demonstrated he does not know what his government is doing.

Mr Harper was asked about the Manley panel's demand that new medium-lift helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) be acquired by next February to support the Afghan mission. He replied that these are "on order" and mentioned difficulties in securing delivery places on already-committed production lines. But neither the helicopters nor the UAVs are "on order".

The government itself recently officially stated that, while the helicopter procurement process for the helicopters is well underway, the award of an actual contract is only "expected by the end of 2008." (See "3. Medium- to Heavy-Lift Helicopters" at preceding link.) As for UAVs, the air force officer in charge of the project said in October 2007 that "...officials hope to get the first aircraft into Afghanistan "within months" of the contract being signed next year." No contract has yet been signed.

Nothing is "on order". Pitiful.

The prime minister went on to say that the government would look to NATO to provide the required capabilities by February 2009.

Update: From a Globe and Mail story:
The government has already placed its order for helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles and is working with allies to secure them quickly, said Mr. Harper.
Really?

Upperdate: The prime minister's communcations director does not exactly clarify things adequately--see the last paragraph in this excerpt from a Globe and Mail story, Jan. 29:
...government officials later said the Prime Minister jumped the gun and that they are still trying to find the best way to obtain the equipment quickly...

Mr. Harper said the government has already started to act on those two fronts.

"First of all, let's be clear both in terms of the helicopters requested in the reports as well as the UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles]. The government has these on order, has had them on order for some time [emphasis added - MC]," Mr. Harper said...

On helicopters, however, all the government has in the works is the aim of signing a contract late this year with Boeing Co...

No drones are on order at this point either. Still, the Department of National Defence is hoping to launch a competition soon to enter into a three-year lease agreement for fully operational UAVs at an approximate cost of $150-million...

Mr. Harper's spokeswoman, Sandra Buckler, added: "Everyone is aware the procurement process is well under way for Chinooks and UAVs."
That's not the same as "on order for some time". Greg Weston devotes a whole column to the matter in the Ottawa Sun:
PM in spin cycle
Harper needs to come clean on Canada's war effort in Afghanistan

CDS General Hillier on Afstan

From an interview in the Ottawa Citizen:
...
ON NEGOTIATION INSTEAD
OF FIGHTING:

"I think you have to draw a line. Yes, you want to negotiate, discuss and without violence. But when you get to some of those men -- you know something? It's not about religion. It's not about extreme views.

"It always comes down to this: Men want power -- power to make money, power to enforce or inflict their views on others and power to remain immune from responsibility for, and accountability for, their actions. They take patriotism to the extreme of nationalism. They take religion to extremist views.

"In Prijedor, Bosnia (where in 2000 he took command of NATO's Multinational Division (Southwest) in Bosnia-Herzegovina), we had a chief of public security, a mayor and a chief of police. And they were the equivalent of having Paul Bernardo as your mayor, Clifford Olson as your chief of public security and Karla Homolka as your chief of police. How can you deal with people like that in a dialogue and get them to actually help the people they're responsible for -- as opposed to abusing, torturing and in many cases, killing them?

"Some Canadians don't understand the fact you can't just go and talk to people in Southern Afghanistan and say 'OK, now put your guns down and let's all come to an agreement that we're actually going to build some schools and we're actually going to have some boys and girls go to school and we're actually going to choose who's going to lead us here.'

"People start shooting and killing folks and children, women, older people or men --they don't care -- and at some point in time, you're just going to have to say 'We're not going to accept this'."

ON PEACEKEEPING:

"The peacekeeping concept works superbly in many cases -- not all. It worked when it was state-versus-state that had come to some politically-negotiated agreement. They now needed assistance in helping separate military forces to implement that agreement.

"The world has changed. Now we very seldom have that. What we have are stateless threats based on terrorist groups who can operate either across several countries, regions or worldwide."

ON PREVENTION:

"Fighting is necessary to prevent terrorism from coming here. It's clear. The Taliban, when they ran Afghanistan, provided a haven for terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, but not exclusively al-Qaeda.

"There's the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, among others, that operated in the region. They brought recruits from other parts of the world to Afghanistan, trained them, fed them. And from there, they did their planning for terrorist operations. The nexus of the plan on 11 September to attack the World Trade Center came out of Afghanistan and the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"We are trying to help Afghans to build a country that no longer is a haven for that kind of terrorism, is no longer a chaotic country where drug lords can actually make billions of dollars by exporting drugs that disrupt western societies and other regions."

ON A CANADIAN WITHDRAWAL:

"I would simply say why we're doing these things, and why some other countries should step up.

"First of all, this is what the soldiers see, and they tell me this.

"1: We are a founding member of NATO and NATO says this is a No. 1 mission.

"2: There are other NATO countries with us in Afghanistan, fully engaged in operations against the Taliban. The United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, the Netherlands, Denmark, Estonia, Romania, and Poland are (in the south) with us [note the countries so rarely mentioned in Canada - MC].

"Yes, I would like to see more from other NATO nations in southern Afghanistan, but you also have got to put that into context of what they're doing elsewhere around the world.

"3: We're there to help the government of Afghanistan who asked for this help because they can't see their way to rebuild their country without some kind of security assistance until they build their own armed forces -- which we are helping them to do.

"So if we're not going to respond with help to a country that desperately needs it, what are we going to do?

"4: We have been a huge proponent of the responsibility to protect. And words in the case of Afghanistan just won't do it at the present time. So, are we not going to be stepping up to put actions to words?

"Lastly, we're a G8 nation. One of our young commanders told me recently in Edmonton: 'Sir, we're not trying to become one of the big boys. We are one of the big boys. Now we should just start acting like it. We are a G8 nation that has responsibilities.'..
Communicating.

Update: Terry Glavin expresses his "regards to Le Tendence Torchiste." Next, Albert Camus?

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Afstan/Pakistan roundup

News from various fronts:
A CONVERSATION WITH HAMID KARZAI

An Afghan Province Points the Way

Ashdown pulls out of Afghan role

Pakistan Rebuffs Secret U.S. Plea
for C.I.A. Buildup

I think the story about the Afghan province (US military in Nangahar) may reflect realities in Defense Secretary Gates' mind when he criticized other NATO countries' counterinsurgency actions. I sure hope an effective new UN Lord High Poobah for Afghanistan can be found. That role is crucial: 1) for making all the various international activities work together; and 2) for giving a recognizable UN face to those activities in order to win the public's support in many Western countries, e.g. Canada.

Something certainly has to be done to improve Pakistan's ability to deal with the Taliban, al Qaeda, and local Islamists:
Ex-Pakistani Official Says Policy on Taliban Is Failing
Update: As for "the way" above, a related Reuters story below (via Celestial Junk); would it not be ironic if in the end the Taliban were effectively marginalized in Afstan, but able practically to dismember Pakistan? Scary.
New U.S. strategy working in east Afghanistan
Upperdate: A thoughtful piece by William Arkin of the Washington Post:
Don't Open a Third Front in Pakistan
Helping train and advise Pakistani forces, plus some covert CIA activity coordinated with the Pakistani government, might just be tolerable in the country. Any attempt to have US units fight themselves would just discredit the government amongst the non-Islamist, large Muslim majority of the population.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

At least they don't shoot our generals

Babbling's earlier post is exactly to the point on the government's failure to communicate. I think its pathetic and abysmal handling of the Afghan detainee issue may well offset in public opinion any increased support for our mission resulting from the Manley panel report. And our scandal-obsessed media only make things worse. The Globe and Mail's Christie Blatchford (our Annie Oakley of journalism) hits the target as usual:
Oh, please: The Stephen Harper government didn't know that the Canadian military had stopped handing over Afghan detainees last fall, after Canadian monitors found what they called a credible allegation of torture?

This claim, made Thursday night by the Prime Minister's communications director, Sandra Buckler, was being hastily retracted by Ms. Buckler less than 24 hours later.

"I should not have said what I said to you," she told The Globe and Mail's Campbell Clark yesterday. "I misspoke, and I wanted to make sure you were aware of that." Then she refused to say whether she "misspoke" because she said something she shouldn't have or because she said something that was wrong, and declined further comment. And she - madness! -- is the PM's communications director.

Knock me down with a feather: Ms. Buckler misspeaks, slurs the Canadian Forces and gives credence to all those who were already, as Mike Duffy noted Thursday on CTV NewsNet, pointing the finger of blame at Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier and what? She gets to say, albeit in a magnificently unhelpful way, "Oops"?

Off with her head...

Yet what is far more interesting than the duplicitous double-speak coming from this government is what it reveals both about its control-freak mentality (that if its first instinct is to say nothing, its second is to blame someone outside the circle of wagons, often the military) and the troubling, giddy eagerness with which the claim was sucked into the 24-7 media machine and spun out virtually unaltered for hours at a stretch...

...with Gen. Hillier in the air Thursday when this story broke - he was en route to resume the rare holiday he had already interrupted to return to Ottawa to discuss the Manley report, apparently with the PM and cabinet - there was in his absence no one willing or able to risk disputing Ms. Buckler's now-discredited allegation that the Canadian Forces had kept the government in the dark.

A second factor, I think, is that every story now, whether it is about Paris Hilton or the mission to Afghanistan, is subjected to the same unquestioning hyperbole. We in the press seem to suffer somewhat from a version of what in badly behaved children is called oppositional defiance disorder; we mistrust our own institutions such that we are fully prepared to accept, at least for story purposes, that the Canadian military would try to keep the government, which soldiers know better than anyone else is properly its master, out of the loop...
There's a nice post on the whole "detainee" question at Barrel Strength.

Update: I am in complete accord with this comment at Milnet.ca:
I need to repeat: I am a card carrying, regularly contributing true blue Conservative; I wouldn’t vote for Dion’s Liberals if they were the only choice on the ballot and I think Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton, and their parties, are bad jokes. But: I am not blind to the fact that Prime Minister Harper and his close, personal staff are anti-military and, at the very best, weak sisters when it comes to the Afghanistan mission.

They (Harper’s closest advisors and staff assistants) have lied, over and over again, about Gen. Hillier in an attempt to control or undermine him and to subvert his “message” to the armed forces he heads and to Canadians – the parents, spouses, children, brother and sisters and friends and neighbours of our armed forces’ members.

Prime Minster Harper has been a notable and singular failure at explaining (much less defending) the mission in Afghanistan – most likely, I believe because he only considers the mission as a partisan political device that he can use to sow dissention in the ranks of the Liberal Party of Canada. In other words: Prime Minister Harper – my prime minister, head of my party – cares little about the troops and their mission. His only concern is the next election.

Maybe that’s the way it has to be in 21st century Canada, but Blatchford’s description of a “disgraceful whirlwind” is spot on.
A much stronger presentation of thoughts similar to mine here.

HMCS Charlottetown on patrol

Doing good works:
News Release

HMCS Charlottetown assists dhow in distress

CEFCOM/COMFEC NR 08.007 - January 25, 2008


During the evening of January 24, 2008, the patrol frigate Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship (HMCS) Charlottetown picked up a message on VHF channel 16, the distress frequency, and immediately responded. On reaching the position stated in the message, Charlottetown found the fishing dhow Al Rahman adrift with a Pakistani crew of 18 in the northern Arabian Sea off the coast of Pakistan.

HMCS Charlottetown is deployed for six months in the Persian Gulf-Arabian Sea region on Operation ALTAIR, Canada’s maritime contribution to the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism known as Operation ENDURING FREEDOM [under US Central Command]. The frigate was conducting a maritime security patrol when the distress message was received.

An approach party from Charlottetown went to the dhow in a rigid-hulled inflatable boat with an Arabic interpreter. The dhow’s captain told the interpreter that he had just run out of gas. He would have had enough fuel to return to his home port if he had not shared his supply with another dhow he found in distress a few days before.

In compliance with the Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) Convention, Charlottetown topped up the dhow’s tanks to ensure it would make port safely. As members of the maritime community, Canada’s sailors are always ready to provide life-saving assistance to fellow mariners on the high seas.

-30-

Note for news and assignment editors:

For still imagery of the approach party from HMCS Charlottetown with the dhow Al Rahman, visit Canadian Forces Combat Camera at http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/.

Here's a great post by Babbling about the work of our previous ship in the area, HMCS Toronto.

Update: And seeing action of another sort:
Canadian sailors patrolling the Arabian Sea in the war on terrorism ended up this week helping Pakistani authorities fight alcohol smuggling.

On Wednesday, the crew of the Halifax-based frigate HMCS Charlottetown turned over a boatload of booze smugglers to Pakistani authorities. Convictions for selling alcohol in the Muslim country can result in imprisonment and caning.

"We came across a dhow that was smuggling alcohol illegally — quite a bit of alcohol," Lt.-Cmdr. Mike Davie, Charlottetown’s executive officer, said Friday in a telephone interview from the warship.

"So the boarding party and our helicopter had to intercept this vessel. And it was quite a morning, because once these guys saw that we were coming over the horizon, they all got into two smaller vessels called skiffs and they left the fishing dhow unmanned."

The ship’s Sea King helicopter flew in front of the two small boats to keep the smugglers from escaping, he said.

"They come down into a low hover and just the wind and the spray from the rotors is quite intimidating," Lt.-Cmdr. Davie said. "The guys in the helicopter point to the fishing dhow, as if to say, ‘You should be going back there.’ And they turned around and they went back. It can be quite hairy. These skiffs go very fast and they’re very hard to see."

Once Charlottetown’s boarding party did a quick inspection of the two skiffs, they caught up with the unmanned dhow, which was still motoring along. They jumped on board and took control of the 15-metre vessel...

"Once we determined that they were conducting illegal smuggling, we got a hold of the Pakistani Maritime Security Agency and they sent a ship out to take them back into Pakistan," said Lt.-Cmdr. Davie, noting Pakistani authorities also took the dhow full of booze.

Charlottetown was about 55 kilometres south of Pakistan on Friday morning.

"As part of the culture, there is not a lot of alcohol being consumed over there. And so it’s definitely an illegal activity," Lt.-Cmdr. Davie said. "This is part of the reason why we’re over here. It’s almost like a policing activity."

Charlottetown is doing maritime security operations with a multinational naval task force under the direction of a Pakistani commodore [but under overall command of the USN, I'm sure - MC]...
And now, the horror (and the communications pit):
Dan Dugas, director of communications for Defence Minister Peter MacKay, refused comment on the smuggling case.

"I would never comment on a hypothetical such as what if they’re found guilty and what if they face such and such," Mr. Dugas said in an e-mail. "They haven’t gone through due process so it would be wrong to comment on their case."

Canadian sailors handing people over to a country where they could be caned raises serious questions, said Peter Stoffer, the New Democrat MP for Sackville-Eastern Shore.

"Alcohol is strictly forbidden in Islamic countries. They’re quite strict on that and people know what the rules are," Mr. Stoffer said. "But yet we arrested them, so they’re technically our prisoners and we wouldn’t do that to people in our own country. So I would say that Canada, before turning them over, should get the assurances that they won’t be physically beaten or caned or anything of that nature."

It’s "too late now" to extract that kind of promise from Pakistani authorities for the smugglers who were handed over Wednesday, he said.

"But I would say, in future, if that happens, that the guys should say very clearly that, ‘Look, we caught these guys doing it. We’re going to hand them over to you. Just don’t beat them up,’ " Mr. Stoffer said.

It's Ban Ki-moon's war

A letter of mine in the Globe and Mail (the title is theirs; mine was the one for this post):
Pay heed to Mr. UN

By MARK COLLINS
Saturday, January 26, 2008 – Page A22

Ottawa -- I find it curious that you chose to publish United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's article Being In Afghanistan Is Dangerous, Not Being In Afghanistan Is More Dangerous (Jan. 24) in the online edition only. Your general readership surely would have been interested in these words of his: "Our collective success depends on the continuing presence of the International Security Assistance Force, commanded by NATO and helping local governments in nearly every province to maintain security and carry out reconstruction projects."

In any event, Canadian politicians such as Jack Layton and Elizabeth May - who advocate having the UN take over the international military presence in Afghanistan - should pay close attention to the words of the UN's own Secretary-General. Though I doubt they will.
It's one of Norman Spector's "Letters of the Day".

I sent the following letter to the National Post, January 24; they've not printed it. Don Martin is a journalist--it's never quite clear whether he's a reporter or a columnist--from Alberta. He likes to play the role of a hard-bitten, cynical, old-school newsman (but with a sharp sense of humour) who just calls them as he sees them and takes no guff from no-one. Unfortunately his vision is rather limited. He's basically all attitude and little cattle, as the letter I think demonstrates:
No wonder Canadians are confused and ill-informed about the situation in Afghanistan. Don Martin, in his column "Canadian troops far from alone" (Jan. 24), purports, among other things, to explain where the troops of various countries participating in NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) are stationed. Unfortunately he gets quite a few basic facts wrong--all the more remarkable since he was in Afghanistan himself just half a year ago.

Australian troops are not partners with the British in Kandahar province [major goof on my part, Brits of course are in Helmand]; they are partners with the Dutch in Uruzgan. The Dutch themselves have not "locked in their 1,500 soldiers until 2010"; they are reducing their strength to around 1,100. Turkish troops are not in the east with the Americans; they are in Kabul and in addition provide a provincial reconstruction team in Wardak, just to the west of Kabul. The 3,200 Marines being sent to Afghanistan--not 3,500 as Mr Martin writes--are not to be stationed in the east. The 2,200 combat troops will be based in the south (and under the overall command of Canadian Maj.-Gen. J.G.M. Lessard, who becomes head of ISAF Regional Command South in February); the rest of the Marines will mainly train the Afghan National Police, wherever needed. The French are not in the north; they are in Kabul (the French also have six Mirage fighters based at Kandahar). And while there are some Romanians at Kandahar, as Mr Martin notes, the largest Romanian contribution is a battalion fighting with the Americans in the east.

What a lot of misinformation. Dear me.

References:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/23/2126197.htm
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EDIS-79JMYL?OpenDocument
http://www.genelkurmay.org/eng/uluslararasi/isaf.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4120
http://www.forces.gc.ca/dsa/app_bio/engraph/FSeniorOfficerBiographyView_e.asp?SectChoice=1&mAction=View&mBiographyID=63
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/ema/votre_espace/contents_in_english/afghanistan/03_01_08_french_forces_in_afghanistan
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=73b91e8c-37da-43e7-9ccb-2f06e345150c

Numbers

Imagine what the numbers would be like if the Government and DND could actually come up with a comprehensive communications strategy - and then execute it. With three months of work and one report Manley and the rest of the panel have accomplished what the Government has failed to do since the beginning of our Afghanistan involvement. Granted, Prime Minister Harper commissioned the report, but his motives are not exactly altruistic in this matter.

The current mission has suffered a lack of, or simply poor communication from day one. Canadians can understand tactical considerations or operational security as long as they are used judiciously and correctly. Blanket policy directives serve as nothing more than band-aids on an open political wound. We do the Canadian military a great injustice when we allow political parties of any stripe to use them for their partisan ends. Foreign Affairs, CIDA, DND and the PMO all have their finger in the pie, along with the opposition parties, NGO's, anti-war groups, human rights advocates and anyone else willing to step up to a microphone. The problem lies with no one knowing when to pull the finger out.
Support on rise
Canwest News Service
Published: Saturday, January 26, 2008

OTTAWA - The portion of Canadians who want Canadian troops to withdraw from Afghanistan has dropped seven points to 37 per cent in the aftermath of John Manley's report recommending a conditional extension of the military mission in Kandahar, says an Ipsos Reid poll released Friday.

The portion willing to extend the mission if the role shifts from combat to non-combat, such as training Afghan soldiers or police officers, has risen five points to 45 per cent since October.

The poll for Canwest News Service and Global National, conducted as Canadians digested the Manley recommendations earlier this week, suggests Canadians are open to an extension of a mission for non-combat purposes, said pollster John Wright. The 14 per cent of Canadians willing to extend the mission as is remained unchanged.

The pollsters found the majority of Canadians regard the Manley panel recommendations as fair (36 per cent) or good (29 per cent) or great (six per cent). Nearly a quarter (22 per cent) said Manley's proposals are a "bad plan" while seven per cent had no opinion.
David Bercuson, Director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, has an excellent suggestion in this piece. He suggests either a cabinet war committee or a special civilian adviser to oversee Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. Why not both? John Manley is already a Privy Councillor and well qualified to chair a cabinet committee formed for this purpose.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Afghanistan and Canada, reason and passion

If you take the Afghanistan issue seriously, watch the January 25 edition of TVO's "The Agenda". John Manley and Janice Stein (about whom I have not always been complimentary) speak very well about what is involved. The host, Steve Paikin (whom I usually like), tries overmuch to stir things up, with little success. Video is available here, on the right at "Watch Video". Please do.

Slightly less than an hour but well worth the time to consider matters put pretty starkly and, I think, honestly. An informed democracy, and all that...

John Manley made this strong observation: Professor Michael Byers "didn't have the courage" to appear before his panel. Quite.

Canadian policy in Afstan is racist

Scott Taylor really goes low in a column dismissing the Manley panel report:
...
The big recommendation from Manley was, of course, the shift from focusing on combat to the training the Afghan National Army (ANA)[actually already the policy - MC].

Once again, this is something the Canadian military has been promoting for months.

Unfortunately, this new report makes no real concrete suggestions towards the establishment of professional Afghan military cadres such as the medical, logistics, police, legal and engineering officers required to make the ANA a stand-alone force.

Instead, this report implies a stay-the-course extension of our instructors' churning out of Afghan infantry units. If we don't begin to create an educated, literate, professional Afghan army, NATO will never be able to disengage.

On Canada AM, I had expressed the opinion that this current program constituted essentially a racist policy to which John Manley came on the air laughing derisively. "How can it be racist to expect the Afghans to do the fighting?" he chortled. "It's their country."

RACIST

As I could not add further clarification at the time, I offer to do so now: To send Afghans into battle alongside our soldiers with a drastically reduced standard of training, weaponry, and protective equipment is racist. And that's not a laughing matter Mr. Manley.

The Manley report was a missed opportunity for Canada to change direction while continuing our commitment to the people of Afghanistan.
What a jerk.

The Jerc and Globemaster III benefits' train rolls back to Ontario

Talk about a fast-moving barrage of bucks (note the "astounding coincidence" near the end):
Lockheed Martin has announced that it will be farming out $175-million-worth of work to Ontario companies in connection to the federal government's purchase of its Super Hercules aircraft.

The defence contractor said the news was one of four regional announcements which will total the first 60 per cent of the industrial benefits obligation under the $1.4-billion contract.

It has also committed $242 million to Atlantic Canada, $241 million to Quebec and $185 million to Western Canada.

The federal government last week agreed to buy 17 C-130J Super Hercules airlifters and related equipment and services. The aircraft are being used for troop and equipment resupply via ground delivery and airdrop, for air-to-air refuelling, ground refuelling and humanitarian relief.

"The addition of the C-130J program will allow us to build on what we are already doing in Canada. It is a tremendous opportunity to strengthen existing relationships in Canada, develop new ones, and work together to enhance the capabilities and expertise of Canadian industry," said Ross Reynolds Lockheed Martin's vice-president of C-130 programs.

The company said Ottawa-based Telesat Canada would be one of the Ontario companies set to benefit from the commitments to the region, with Lockheed Martin using Telesat's WAAS GCCS Signals in Space services.

Delivery for the aircraft will begin in 2010 and be completed by 2013.
That first delivery will be very late in 2010 indeed (from "1. Tactical Airlift" at link):
...The purchase contract, valued at $1.4 billion U.S. was awarded on 20 December 2007. The first aircraft is to be delivered within 36 months of contract award. The last aircraft will be delivered within 60 months of contract award.
C-17 benefits are mentioned generally in the official news release:
The Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry, along with his colleague, the Honourable John Baird, Minister of the Environment, today welcomed the news that Boeing and Lockheed Martin are providing contracts in Ontario with a Canadian content value of more than $341 million, as part of their industrial benefits commitments to Canada...
So far Quebec gets $660 million, Ontario and Western Canada each $341 million (what an astounding coincidence!!!), and Atlantic Canada $290 million (other regions' figures at this link). That's a country-wide total so far of $1.632 billion--will there be a separate B.C. binge? The overall benefits are supposed to be $2.9 billion so there's still some $1.3 million waiting to be unloaded from the gravy train:
Under Canada's industrial benefits policy, Boeing has an obligation to generate economic activity in Canada at an amount equivalent to the total value of those contracts ($1.5 billion)...

Under Canada's industrial benefits policy, Lockheed Martin has an obligation to generate economic activity in Canada at an amount equivalent to the contract ($1.4 billion).

The company has already identified $842 million in industrial benefit transactions throughout Canada...

What's happening in Pakistan

Further to the "Pakistan" part at the end of this post, and to this story about Defense Secretary Gates himself offering direct US military help to assist the Pakistanis in fighting insurgents and terrorists in the border region, here's an interesting blog post at nationalreviewonline (via J.M. Heinrichs):

War in Waziristan [Stanley Kurtz]

What if there were a major development in the war on terror and nobody paid attention? Well, it would still be a major development in the war on terror. The event in question is a offensive by Pakistan’s army against the Taliban’s haven in South Waziristan. Pakistan’s government is playing this down by merely calling it a move to "reinforce" positions in Waziristan, and by formally denying that an "offensive" has been launched at all. But this rhetoric is pretty clearly designed to prevent a backlash by Pakistan’s many Islamist sympathizers.

The Western media are generally ignoring developments in Waziristan and/or playing them down. For one thing, reporters long ago fled the tribal regions, which in any case were largely closed to outsiders. That gives government bulletins an outsized influence on the press, and the government keeps its reports focused on small specifics — like the killing of a few "miscreants" in some obscure small town which no one in the West has ever heard of. Yet it’s increasingly evident that we are finally seeing a serious move by the Pakistani army against the Islamists’ core refuge in Waziristan.

The best coverage of developments in Waziristan comes from Pakistani sources, which retain connections to private sources in the tribal areas. Here’s a report from Pakistan’s Dawn entitled, "Troops advance with tanks for major assault: Clashes continue in S. Waziristan." Here’s a story from Pakistan’s Nation, "Army launches new operation in SWA" (South Waziristan Agency). Despite the limitations on reporting from this region, the Western press could be saying much more about the Waziristan offensive. Since this story tends to show that Musharraf and Pakistan’s military are in fact fighting terrorism, and since it is a positive development in the war on terror, the media finds this item, shall we say, uninteresting.

Notice also that yesterday, General David Rodriguez, who commands American forces in eastern Afghanistan, said that he did not expect the Taliban to launch its usual yearly offensive in Afghanistan this coming spring. That is a remarkable statement. The press attributes Rodriguez’s comment to the Taliban’s growing interest in creating disruptions within Pakistan, and that’s partly true. But actually predicting the absence of a spring offensive in Afghanistan is a bold and significant statement. I think it reflects Rodriguez’s understanding that the Pakistani army has got a key section of the Taliban bottled up and under assault across the border in Pakistan. But U.S. sources themselves are playing down the significance of this development, so as not to stimulate a backlash among Pakistanis angry at their army’s cooperation with America.

There is at least the prospect of a major shift in the war on terror here. If (and it’s a big if) the Pakistani army can successfully prosecute its campaign against the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies in South Waziristan, that will give us a huge boost in Afghanistan. But this is only the beginning of a complicated and risky new phase in the war on terror. There are signs that the fighting will spread to North Waziristan. That would mean an ultimate showdown in the Islamists’ last big refuge (and the site of al-Qaeda’s many terror-training camps), and it’s unclear that the Pakistani army will be up to that challenge.

Also, Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud has promised major attacks on security installations in the capital if the army presses forward with its attack. So we could soon see some serious terrorism in Islamabad and other major Pakistani cities, with the real possibility of destabilization. Much depends on broader public reaction to the assault in Waziristan. But with the press and government playing this down, and with the public distracted by the election campaign, there is at least a decent chance that Pakistan’s army will be able to deal the Taliban and al-Qaeda a major blow in Waziristan, without excessive blowback in Pakistan itself.

For more on the offensive now underway in Waziristan, and how it involves a variation on our "tribal strategy" from Anbar, see "Offensive in Waziristan?" and "Tribal War in Waziristan?"

And here's some interesting stuff from the Gates story linked to above; will our media notice?
...
The U.S. military is also beginning to construct as many as eight coordination centers along the Afghan-Pakistani border that will be staffed by officers from the three countries to more closely share intelligence and conduct combat operations, according to Maj. Gen. David Rodriguez, the top U.S. commander for eastern Afghanistan.

The first border center is being built at Torkham Gate [I've been through it several times, some time ago - MC] in Afghanistan, a key crossing near the Khyber Pass and about 30 miles from the Pakistani city of Peshawar, Rodriguez said...

Rodriguez said Pakistani military leaders are increasingly willing to cooperate in operations on either side of the border. There is "a growing realization amongst all of them, that everybody needs to do more together," he said at a Pentagon briefing this week.

Last year, the U.S. military in Afghanistan established a shared computer link with the Pakistani military's headquarters and set up high-frequency radio communications to coordinate cross-border operations. It also surveyed Pakistani, Afghan and U.S. border positions, and stepped up training of Afghan border police.
And there may have been dissension amongst Taliban ranks in Pakistan. According to this story:
...
Taliban leader Mullah Omar has put his foot down and reset the goals for the Taliban: their primary task is the struggle in Afghanistan, not against the Pakistan state.

Mullah Omar has sacked his own appointed leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, the main architect of the fight against Pakistani security forces, and urged all Taliban commanders to turn their venom against North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces, highly placed contacts in the Taliban told Asia Times Online. Mullah Omar then appointed Moulvi Faqir Mohammed (a commander from Bajaur Agency) but he refused the job. In the past few days, the Pakistani Taliban have held several meetings but have not yet appointed a replacement to Mehsud...
Update: No sale for Mr Gates' troop offer:
Pakistan's Musharraf Says No US Troops

Revolt of the Canadians

It's been a good week in the Old Dominion. The Gods of the Copybook Headings speak, and so do I:

...As news arrived that the we had not became a de facto Republic by court order and Charter challenge, we learned that a government panel, commissioned by the Prime Minister, had judged our efforts in Afghanistan worthy and true, though imperfect. There was talk of us playing hardball with our NATO allies, threatening to pull out unless they put up. There was talk of more reconstruction. There was very little talk of surrender and withdrawal. The good Canadian, the choir invisible has told us, is a peacekeeper. We see daily in Afghanistan that we are still a nation that can produce warriors. Virtually all of Europe has become enervated, yet still we have, however small and improvised, a real fighting force. The martial virtues kept alive in defiance of all expectation and the devout wish of the pacifists who have controlled our foreign policy for two generations.

Our freedoms, our crown and our armed forces. These were once cornerstones of our identity. The Pearson-Trudeau project has seen each weakened in an attempt to create a post-colonial identity, one based on the faddish notions of the 1960s. The efforts to unanchor us from our history, its best and worst elements, to return us to a tabula rasa where a new Canada was to be created, seemed to most conservatives to be a success. Those who doubted the wisdom of the neo-Jacobins were a small minority of the those too old to adapt and too young to know better.

We have seen in the span of a week three small but powerful instances of the best of the old Canada reasserting herself. Invoking the Magna Carta used to be a defense attorney cliche; when Ezra spoke it had all the feeling of radical defiance. Justice Barnes' insistence that Canada was still a monarchy read not like a platitude and instead came down with the power of prophecy. The Manley Report chastised the Conservative government for not supporting the mission strongly enough, for not explaining more clearly and forcefully our reasons and goals. A war-time government was not being martial enough. I do not delude myself to the nature of the task ahead. Still what we have seen are flashes in the dark. They give us bearing and comfort. They remind us that Henry Hazlitt was not wrong when he promised that one day time would run back.

A puffed-chest moment

My thanks to whomever among you mentioned The Torch on an Ottawa radio call-in show about Afghanistan recently. My grandfather heard it, and it made his day.

In fact, it made my day hearing that it made his. So thanks.

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Afstan: A "misjudgment of historic proportions"

That is what those who oppose our combat mission are making, according to this piece by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon--which the Globe and Mail chooses to publish only on the Web. Why not in the print edition? And the minds of those opponents will remain closed to his assessments and arguments despite their professed devotion to the UN (via Bruce Rolston):
Afghanistan is a potent symbol of the costs inherent in abandoning nations to the lawless forces of anarchy. That alone justifies international efforts to help rebuild the country. Lest there be any doubt, remember Sept. 11, 2001, and its worldwide reverberations. We learned then how a country, shorn of its civic institutions, becomes a vacuum to be filled by criminals and opportunists. In its chaos and poverty, Afghanistan became a home base for terrorism.

Must we learn that lesson all over again?..

Yet, this progress is in jeopardy. Once again, the opportunists are on the rise, seeking anew to make Afghanistan a lawless place — a locus of instability, terrorism and drug trafficking. Their means are desperate: suicide bombs, kidnappings, the killing of government officials and hijacking of aid convoys. Almost more dismaying is the response of some outside Afghanistan, who react by calling for a disengagement or the full withdrawal of international forces. This would be a misjudgment of historic proportions, the repetition of a mistake that has already had terrible consequences...

The United Nations, alongside national and international counterparts, non-governmental organizations and Afghan civil society, will continue to provide the Afghan government whatever assistance it needs to build on these achievements. Our collective success depends on the continuing presence of the International Security Assistance Force [emphasis added], commanded by NATO and helping local governments in nearly every province to maintain security and carry out reconstruction projects.

In December, the Afghan National Army, supported by ISAF forces, reclaimed the town of Musa Qala in the southern province of Helmand, occupied by insurgents since February of 2007, and a major poppy-growing area. Significantly, it was led by the Afghan army and carried out at the request of the local population. At long last, development work can begin anew in Musa Qala.

The Afghan government has far to go before it regains control of its own destiny. But that day will come. It is hard work. There is little glory. It requires sacrifices. And that is why we are there [emphasis added].
Rather better than what Prime Minister Harper has been saying. Please read it Stephen, Stéphane, Gilles and Jack. And all those self-satisfied pundits.

John Manley, for his part, put the case for the mission superbly. Here's a good post by Aaron Wherry at his Maclean's blog (also via Bruce Rolston).

Update: The "Comments" at the Globe site are, er, revelatory.

Upperdate: Terry Glavin picks up on this post and writes:
...
It's not the first time the UN Secretary-General has appealed to NATO-ISAF countries to maintain their combat-troop levels in Afghanistan to ensure the country doesn't revert to “a host for terrorist and extremist groups.” But this latest appeal was far more frank, candid, plain-spoken and stern than anything he's said to date, that I'm aware of.

After the Secretary-General's blistering rebuke, is it really possible to continue to take anyone seriously who says things like "It's time to move NATO troops out, and UN peacekeepers in"?

How many more UN resolutions on the subject do we need?..
An earlier guest-post of mine on the "anyone" whom one can't take seriously is here.

Uppestdate: And maybe, just maybe, the Liberal leader is starting to see the light:
Liberal leader Stéphane Dion yesterday reiterated his party's position on the Afghan mission -- that Canada's involvement in combat must end in 2009 -- but added his party was "open to debate."..

Members of Mr. Manley's panel have also suggested the government delay any debate in the House of Commons on the Afghan mission until after NATO leaders meet in April.

This is a reasonable recommendation, Mr. Dion said. "There is no rush to vote right away."

What Taylor said, and a bit more

Chris Taylor puts it oh-so-well:

If 1,000 troops is the dividing line between victory and defeat, then I suggest it is incumbent upon Canada to ante up the remainder and see the job completed.

A former President of our southern neighbour once exhorted his countrymen to to pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. The Canadian version would be to pay any price, bear any burden and meet any hardship—as long as we're not paying greater prices, burdens and hardships than anyone else. If the ROI isn't measurable in political capital during the current mandate of Her Majesty's Dominion Government, then forget it. Better to pump that money into a national childcare scheme or a make-work project.


I've but one quibble with his piece. When he says "I will admit that every child in Afghanistan may grow up a sworn jihadi, and every female within its borders may never enjoy equal rights, and neither of these things will affect one's quality of life in Etobicoke, nor will it solve the problems of urban poverty and decay" I understand the point he's digging for, but I disagree with the words he's chosen to make it with, all the same.

One of the reasons we should be in Afghanistan is precisely because it will affect one's quality of life in Etobicoke. We are a prosperous nation in large part because of our profound participation in international commerce. And as that economy depends upon more than just a dollop of international security, we all have a vested interest in keeping failed states like Afghanistan from becoming terrorist nurseries.

We reap the benefits of an interconnected world. On a moral level, we should be willing to contribute to the collective security essential to maintaining that interconnectivity. But if that moral imperative is not enough, we should also be willing to do what is required because it is in our practical self-interest as well.

"Strategic Cousins"

We have become like cousins – “strategic cousins” in the words of your military historian John Blaxland.
- Prime Minister Harper addressing Australia's Parliament, Sep 2007

So the Manley Report calls for Canada to team up with a strategic partner in Afghanistan. Good idea. I can think of no more strategic partner than our historical strategic cousin from Down Under.

If there is any country capable of stepping up to the plate to supply another battle group into the theatre of operations in south Afstan, it would likely be the French. Given that the Europeans must be looking to create more synergies and interoperablility for EU defence purposes, France and the Netherlands should team up, allowing us to work closely with the Australians.

I know the Dutch will not like this suggestion. The Netherland's ambassador to Canada admitted a preference for working with Anglosphere partners, rather than European ones for language and cultural reasons. We must also take into account that it would probably be in France's linguistic and cultural interests to work with Canadians, particularly French Canadians, rather than the Dutch. But if France and the Netherlands are committed to continental union, it would be in their national interests to partner and develop their capabilities in joint operations at every opportunity.

Just as there are good reasons for Canada to cooperate with Australia in joint operations at every opportunity. The Australian military historian, Lieutenant Colonel John C. Blaxland, in a condensed version of his book "Strategic Cousins" writes:

Both Canada and Australia have similarly sized armed forces and spend virtually the same amount of their gross domestic product (1.9 per cent) on defence. Both countries also possess military cultures that have been shaped by the experience of the British Empire and by the experience of Anglo-American coalition warfare. Yet Australia and Canada are rarely compared in contemporary military literature.

The differences between Canada (with its North American location and its membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)) and Australia (with its Asia-Pacific position and its membership of ANZUS) seem to suggest that strategic differences far outweigh strategic similarities.

Despite these perceptions, this article argues that, in military terms, Australia and Canada continue to be ‘strategic cousins’. There are persistent similarities in military heritage, force development programs and operational methods between the Australian and Canadian militaries. When these similarities are combined, they provide a lasting basis for increased cooperation in the 21st century.
Neil James agrees in his review of Lt.Col. Blaxland's work:

Australia shares many similarities and indeed common cultural sources with Canada but also some intriguing differences in the practice of international relations and consequently military strategy. Based on his PhD thesis, John Blaxland’s Strategic Cousins is a masterful drawing out of the common experiences and nuanced differences faced by Canada and Australia in their strategic relations with the United Kingdom and the United States since the late nineteenth century.

One of Blaxland’s overall themes is that Australia and Canada could have achieved more together in influencing their senior strategic partners, both in the imperial defence and US alliance contexts (and in the UN), if they had effectively pooled their efforts more often. This argument is persuasive in itself but as he concedes, was often hamstrung by Canada’s traditional pre-occupation with Atlantic rather than Pacific issues, and by the neurotically-introverted, isolationist, Quebecois millstone perpetually limiting Canadian freedom of action in strategic affairs.

But, he observes, in the so-called ‘global war on terrorism’ Canada and Australia again have much in common in terms of strategic priorities and operational postures. Probably more so than at any time since the early days of the British Empire. As a result, Blaxland argues quite compellingly that the two defence forces have much to gain from working more closely together.
Cross-posted to The Monarchist

Afstan: Pessimism and optimism/US Military and Pakistan

Maybe things are not quite as bad--nor as good. And maybe something can be done in Pakistan.

1) Pessimism:
“WELL, at least we’re not in Baghdad,” we used to say when confronted by the vagaries of the Kabul winter. No heat, sporadic electricity and growing disaffection among the population might make us uncomfortable, but those of us living outside the smothering embrace of the embassies or the United Nations had relative freedom of movement and few security worries.

And of course we had the Serena hotel. Its spa offered solace, a gym and a hot shower; we could pretend for a few hours that we were in Dubai.

But a week ago last Monday, Taliban gunmen burst into the lobby, one exploding his ball-bearing vest, one running to the gym and spa area, spraying bullets as he went. Eight people died, and several more were wounded.

It was a rude shock for those of us who used to feel superior to those who cowered behind their reinforced walls, venturing out only in bulletproof glass surrounded by convoys of big men with big guns...

I am no stranger to the insurgency, having spent three years in Afghanistan and much of the past 12 months in Helmand Province. Helmand, center of opium and Taliban, may be the most unstable region of the country. It is also the scene of some of the fiercest fighting in Afghanistan, with British troops clashing frequently with the rebels.

For the past several months we have been hearing that NATO is winning, that the insurgency is running out of steam. Each suicide attack is a last gasp, a sign that the Taliban are becoming desperate.

As the enemy melts away only to regroup, we are expected to believe that this time, surely, they will stay put in their hideouts. The head of the Afghan National Security Directorate described the Serena attack as a sign of the Taliban’s weakness. “An enemy that cannot hold territory, an enemy that has no support among the people, has no other means than suicide bombing,” the security chief, Amrullah Saleh, told assembled reporters.

But those of us who have covered the steady decline of hope in Afghanistan over the past three years know where the relative strength lies.

Not with the central government, whose head, Hamid Karzai, has largely lost the respect of his people with his increasingly bizarre behavior: weeping at the plight of children in Kandahar, begging the Taliban to send him their address, confessing that he is powerless to control the warlords, auctioning off his silken robe to feed widows and orphans.

Not with the foreign troops, who have been unable to provide security or usher in the development that Afghanistan so desperately needs. Civilian casualties, often hushed up or denied, have made NATO a curse in some parts of the country.

Not with the international assistance community, with its misguided counter-narcotics policies, high-priced consultants and wasteful practices. Out of the billions that have supposedly come into the country, only a trickle has been used to good effect.

The Taliban, under whose brutal regime Afghanistan became an international pariah, are steadily regaining ground. Even those who deplore their harsh rules and capricious behavior welcome the illusion of security they bring in their wake...

Jean MacKenzie is the Afghanistan country director for the Institute of War and Peace Reporting.
2) Optimism (well, sort of):
A senior U.S. military commander said on Wednesday he did not expect the Taliban to mount a major offensive in eastern Afghanistan this spring, but experts warned of rising violence and a stronger insurgency.

Army Maj. Gen. David Rodriguez, the top commander of NATO troops in eastern Afghanistan, said Afghan security forces and other civilian authorities had established a stronger presence in the east of the country...

"The people of Afghanistan don't want the Taliban back and the strength of their institutions has grown significantly in the last year," he said at the Pentagon...

U.S. officials say eastern Afghanistan, which borders Pakistan, has become substantially more stable in the past year, thanks to the work of U.S. troops and Afghan officials in countering the influence of Taliban Islamist militants.

But violence overall in Afghanistan has risen steadily for more than two years.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last month that total violence was up 27 percent from a year ago and up more than 60 percent in the southern province of Helmand, scene of the heaviest fighting.

Retired Lt. Gen. David Barno, former U.S. commander in Afghanistan, told Congress on Wednesday the security situation has deteriorated significantly since 2004 and the Taliban has clearly gained strength.

"The enemy in Afghanistan -- a collection of al Qaeda, Taliban, Hezb-e Islami and foreign fighters -- is unquestionably a much stronger force than the enemy we faced in 2004," Barno told the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee.

"I'm afraid it is an undeniable fact," he said.

Barno said the number of roadside bombs in Afghanistan climbed from 325 in 2004 to 1,469 last year. The number of suicide bombings soared from three in 2004 to more than 130 in 2007, according to Barno.

While Rodriguez painted an optimistic picture, Barno and other experts testifying on Capitol Hill said U.S. and NATO success against the Taliban will depend directly on Pakistan's willingness and ability to clamp down on al Qaeda and Taliban fighters based in its remote, largely ungoverned border area...
As for Pakistan:
The U.S. military plans to significantly expand and accelerate its counterinsurgency training and provision of equipment for Pakistan's armed forces this year as part of a five-year, $2 billion U.S.-Pakistani effort to help stabilize the country, senior U.S. and Pakistani officials said.

The enhanced cooperation will include U.S. military assistance toward counterinsurgency training, technical gear and assistance to improve the Pakistani military's intelligence gathering and its air and ground mobility, the officials said. If requested by Pakistan, it could also involve U.S. Special Operations Forces working with the Pakistani military as it launches "more aggressive" actions against insurgents in northwest tribal areas, said Ambassador Dell L. Dailey, the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator...

U.S. officials said the new strategy is critical, as insurgents once focused on Afghanistan have turned inward to challenge the Pakistani government. "The plan to counter insurgents is to work with the Pakistanis to share intelligence, increase cross-border cooperation between ourselves, the Afghans and the Pakistanis, and to work with Pakistan's military to increase their capability," Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, told The Washington Post this week...

Much of the increased U.S. military cooperation will be tailored to improve the counterinsurgency operations [a current one at link] of the Pakistani military and Frontier Corps, a large but ill-equipped force that has suffered most of the government's combat casualties in tribal areas. For example, it will involve sending in small teams of U.S. trainers, including Special Forces soldiers, as well as technical experts to work with the Pakistani Air Force and intelligence personnel. The U.S. military is planning to expand the number of trainers for Pakistan's Frontier Corps, possibly including contractors or allied forces, and is also seeking to tap into $37 million in counterterrorism funds for that effort, according to U.S. officials...

Manley report: NATO/European reaction

Not much encouragement in these stories:

1) Toronto Star:
Paper ultimatums are unlikely to yield any wholesale solutions for Canada's vexing military struggle in southern Afghanistan, according to European diplomats and analysts familiar with the inner workings of NATO.

While expressing general agreement with the recommendations of Canada's blue-ribbon panel on Afghanistan, European military and political sources said that with the possible exception of the United States, no single ally is in a position to meet the call of providing more than symbolic reinforcements to the project to stabilize Kandahar province...

Political sources throughout Europe shrugged off the panel's recommendation that 1,000 additional NATO troops be found as a condition of Ottawa extending the Canadian mission beyond February 2009. Instead, those privy to the inner workings of NATO negotiations outlined a possibility of NATO allies conjuring so-called "confetti" deployments – small contingents of 100 or fewer troops to aid in the Kandahar mission.

France, Italy and Australia were cited as the most fertile hunting grounds for Canadian officials lobbying for fresh boots in Kandahar.

One diplomatic source acknowledged "conversations are underway" between French and Canadian officials on the possible addition of French forces and training teams to assist the building of the fledgling Afghan National Army...

Speculation abounds, meanwhile, that the U.S., which has the biggest presence in Afghanistan, with troops under its own command and also beneath NATO's umbrella, may by default be forced into filling any Canadian gaps in Kandahar, should Ottawa decide ultimately to draw down its troop levels...
2) Ottawa Citizen:
...
NATO spokesman James Appathurai said it is too soon to comment on the Manley panel's recommendations or its stinging criticism of the campaign against Taliban insurgents.

"The (Canadian) government has not taken a position. The Parliament is not taking a position on these recommendations," Mr. Appathurai told reporters during a briefing at alliance headquarters in Brussels. "So NATO will certainly not take a position at this time."

He said the report, which already has been reviewed by Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, was "thorough (and) very well written."

The European media responded to the report with a yawn. At a downtown Paris newsstand, only the London-based Financial Times mentioned the report.

Some analysts have warned that NATO itself could collapse if it fails in Afghanistan, and one German politician recently warned that a Canadian withdrawal could trigger the alliance's demise.