“Canada–USA: Brothers in arms, not on the ice.”

But certainly in the Sandbox, quote near the end. At Dust my Broom:

Golden podium...and a storybook ending

Update:

On the front lines in Kandahar, the crowd went wild
...

Afghan detainee abuse: "-We begin with a great DND/T Star smack-down"

From Norman's Spectator, his LETTER OF THE DAY:

Re Military told to heed abuse claims, (Star, Feb. 25)
...

Vice-Admiral Denis Rouleau, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff

Here's the article

Military told to heed abuse claims

Defence budget...and The Torch in the major media

Further to these posts,

Which Defence Item Would You Delay?

Canada after Afstan: Demilitarization?

The CF's budget--and missions--after Afstan

Babbling gets quoted by CTV News:

Defence spending freeze 'big mistake,' analysts say
...

Damian Brooks, the founder and main contributor to the widely read military blog The Torch, worries about "stealth cuts" -- budget cuts hidden under hundreds of pages of documents and graphs in the federal budget documents.

He says the military has already been asked -- quietly -- to find "cost savings" of nearly $180 million in the current fiscal year [more here, here and here from the Ottawa Citizen's David Pugliese].

"And the only reason that those numbers came out was because (army commander Lt.-Gen.) Andy Leslie stood up and publicly complained about it," he said. "Otherwise, we would never have heard of them."

Those cuts hit the Canadian Forces just as it was beginning to recover and Brooks says it's unfair to say that some cuts are justified after the large spending increases since Sept. 11, 2001.

"The increases to date have been the least that we could do to rebuild the Forces," he said. "They're not rolling in dough -- the Canadian defence budget is still only a miniscule percentage of our GDP."

He fears that the defence budget will be cut where it is least visible, in the Canadian Forces special forces command, including the secretive JTF-2 commando unit, the Canadian Special Operations Regiment and other specialized units.

"The easiest cuts for the Canadian Forces to make are the ones that no one can see," he said, "and special operations are invisible because they don't tell the public what they do. They can't: it's all top secret."

Yet special forces have been one of Canada's most valuable contributions to missions abroad and at home, Brooks said [see these 2009 posts: "Canadian special forces ops in Afstan (and CSIS)"; "UK SAS to Afstan/Blackout on our special forces"; and '"War wagons"!?!' ]...

The coming Kandahar offensive and a certain reality

Further to this post,

Major ISAF ops: First Helmand, then Kandahar
...

Canadians to be 'tip of the spear' in Kandahar

it seems that pointy end is invisible to some important Americans:

In Afghanistan, U.S. plans major push into Kandahar

Even as Marines in Afghanistan continued to fight for control of the Taliban stronghold of Marja, senior Obama administration officials said Friday that the United States has begun initial planning for a bigger, more complex offensive in Kandahar later this year.

The assault on Marja, the largest U.S.-NATO military operation since 2001, is a "prelude to larger, more comprehensive operations," senior Obama officials said Friday. Administration officials declined to say when the Kandahar offensive will begin, but military officials have said that it probably will kick off in late spring or early summer after additional U.S. forces have moved into the area.

"Bringing comprehensive population security to Kandahar City is really the centerpiece of operations this year, and, therefore, Marja is the prelude. It's sort of a preparatory action," said one senior official, speaking on the condition of anonymity...

Any military operation to drive the Taliban from Kandahar will probably play out very differently than the battle taking place in Marja, which is a tenth the size. About 11,000 U.S. and Afghan troops pushed into Marja and within the first 13 days of the operation raised the Afghan flag over the district's government center. Afghan officials also quickly selected a new district governor to oversee reconstruction efforts.

In Kandahar, U.S. forces are unlikely to move into the city in large numbers and instead will probably attempt to drive Taliban fighters from towns and villages surrounding the main city, military officials said. Local politics in Kandahar, where the Taliban movement first secured its foothold in Afghanistan, are also far more tangled than in Marja.

The success or failure of U.S. operations in Kandahar will probably dominate the administration's next review of war policy in December [emphasis added]. In the interim, President Obama is conducting monthly video conferences with leaders on the ground and receiving lengthy written assessments.

Briefing reporters at the White House, officials described the Marja effort in cautiously optimistic terms, saying it is "well into" the first phase of clearing the Taliban out of the city and that "pockets of resistance" remain. The real test in the area will be whether the United States can help the Afghan government jump-start reconstruction projects and build a non-corrupt government in an area that has in recent years been dominated by the opium trade [more on Marja here]...

And a NY Times headline--note that neither that piece nor the Washington Post one above even mention Canadians.:

U.S. Eyes New Target: Heartland of Taliban

Two Canadian headlines; two solitudes, or what?

NATO prepares for major Kandahar offensive

Canadian forces gird for summer fighting season
Ring of security around Kandahar city key to coalition's strategy, commander says

The simple fact is that the great majority of forces involved will be American, even if many are under Canadian operational command. The US now sees Kanadahar as their area of operations and Canadian should get used to it--and our reporters (and their editors) should cover things accordingly, and realistically.

Afstan: A different timeline from ours

Most senior British Army officer:

General Sir David Richards: Forces reach 'turning point' in Afghanistan
British forces could be pulled out of Afghanistan within five years, the head of the Army, General Sir David Richards, has disclosed.

Sir David said they have reached a “turning point” in the battle against the Taliban. He suggested troop numbers could begin to decline as early as next year while the majority would be withdrawn by 2015.

He gave the upbeat assessment just seven months after warning the Britain’s mission in Afghanistan could last for up to 40 years. Last summer he said the army’s role would evolve but Britain would be providing governance, development or security for three or four decades.

In an exclusive interview with the Daily Telegraph, Sir David said “we are now seeing some very optimistic signs” in the latest military offensive, Operation Moshtarak (togetherness), in Helmand [more here].

British forces had helped to “turn the tables” on the Taliban, which was now facing relentless pressure from British and other Nato forces, he said.

The Taliban had been forced to give “serious consideration” about continuing the fight.

“We expect the military conflict to trail off in 2011,” said Sir David, who was visiting British front-line forces for the first time since taking command of the Army last year. “The combat role will start to decline in 2011, but we will remain militarily engaged in training and support roles for another five years, and we will remain in a support role for many years to come...

See 2) here for General Richards' views on the results of failure in the face of Islamists in Afstan.

March 9 event, Ottawa: "Canada and Afghanistan. Keeping Our Promises"

Further to this post,

Canada, Afstan and UN peacekeeping: Events in Ottawa--the good and...

more from the Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee:

Our government has told us that “the mission as we know it” in Afghanistan will end in 2011—but what comes after that [more here on one issue]?

The Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee (CASC) will unveil its Vision for Canada’s Role in Afghanistan Post-2011 on March 9 at the National Archives Hall in Ottawa. The event, called “Canada and Afghanistan: Keeping Our Promises”, is hosted by the Free Thinking Film Society of Ottawa and is also a fundraiser for the Afghan School Project.

This Vision document will outline recommendations for how Canadians can best remain involved in Afghanistan, in terms of both civilian aid and the security that is essential for providing that aid. Abandoning Afghanistan is not an option: “The threat of abandonment by Canada, the U.S., Britain, and other major NATO countries is not just causing fear and dismay among our Afghan friends,” says CASC senior adviser Lauryn Oates. “It is encouraging the Taliban, and it is encouraging the worst kind of corruption. It is making things worse for ordinary Afghans, whose rights our soldiers have been fighting and dying for.”

CASC’s Vision is based on unprecedented and far-ranging consultations carried out with participation from Canada’s Afghan immigrant community as well as a cross-section of the Afghanistan population. The consultation includes feedback from ordinary citizens as well as politicians, human rights workers, elders, community leaders and experienced analysts.

This event will raise funds for the Afghan School Project (ASP), a Canada-based grassroots initiative, established by the Canadian International Learning Foundation. The ASP provides financial and administrative support to an educational institution in Kandahar, Afghanistan, which provides more than 700 women and men with the opportunity to receive education, while providing members of the community with access to the Internet and online classes from Canadian and international institutions.

Speakers at this event include:

• Major-General (Ret’d) Lewis MacKenzie. Served in the Canadian Forces for 35 years, including a UN peacekeeping command in Yugoslavia in 1992. Awarded the Order of Canada in 2006

• Ehsanullah Ehsan, Director of the Afghan-Canadian Community Centre in Kandahar City [more here]

• Nasrine Gross, Afghan-American writer and human rights activist

• Dr. Nipa Banerjee, currently a professor of international development at the University of Ottawa, served as Canada's head of aid in Kabul for three years.

• Dr. Douglas Bland, Chair of the Defence Management Studies Program at the School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University

• Lauryn Oates, Human rights and gender equity activist; CASC senior advisor

• Terry Glavin, Award-winning author and journalist. One of Canada’s leading voices in support of our Afghanistan campaign.

Event Details

March 9, 2010, 7:00 pm

National Archives/Library of Canada, 395 Wellington St., Ottawa

Tickets: $30 regular admission, $15 students

• Purchase tickets online:

Online at http://www.canilf.org/news/

• Purchase tickets in person:

Ottawa Folklore Centre (1111 Bank Street, Ottawa)

Compact Music (190 Bank; 7851 ½ Bank Street, Ottawa)

Update: A perceptive comment by E.R. Campbell at a Milnet.ca topic thread:

I wonder who the 'target' might be.

As far as I can tell no one, not one soul, amongst the grey suited, grey haired, grey faced Mandarins in Official Ottawa wants to hear another word about Afghanistan. As far as I can tell none of them want anything "after the military mission." My guesstimate is that, between now an early 2011 we will hear more and more Canadians generals and Canadian officials and Canadian politicians and Canadian journalists, regurgitating press releases prepared by the government's spin doctors, telling us that the Afghan National Army is now ready to take over - not really good, but (just) good enough - and on that happy note we have achieved our aim and can come home, heads held high, not having "cut and run" after all.

What's after the military mission in Afghanistan? For us? Nothing. And who cares, anyway? We did our bit. Let's feel good about sending good money after bad to Haiti.

There are a couple of really credible people on that panel - legitimate "thinkers" with big ideas about big issues but no one in Official Ottawa is listening.

Afstan: German Parliament approves troop increase

Further to this post,

500 more Germans for ISAF/Update: But supposed NATO troop increase shortfall

the latest:

German Parliament Backs Afghan Troop Increase

Germany's plan to send up to 850 extra troops to Afghanistan cleared its final hurdle Friday when lawmakers gave it strong backing.

They voted 429-111, with 46 abstentions, to increase the maximum number of German troops serving in Afghanistan to 5,350 from 4,500.

Under the government plan announced last month, Berlin will send 500 extra troops to Afghanistan and focus more on training local forces.

The new mandate, valid for a year, allows for another 350 soldiers to be deployed as a "flexible reserve"—for example, helping secure elections. Parliamentary approval is required for German deployments abroad. Germany currently has 4,340 troops in northern Afghanistan.

It hopes to start reducing its contingent next year and hand over security responsibilities to Afghan authorities in 2014, but isn't setting a specific withdrawal date [emphasis added].

At least some members of the biggest opposition party, the center-left Social Democrats, supported the plan as a route toward an eventual pullout.

"This prospect of withdrawal is the central issue, so we are going along with the increase of the contingent," said their parliamentary leader, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who was Germany's foreign minister until last year.

The deployment is unpopular at home...

If only our Liberals (indeed Conservatives) had a similar approach. More:

Afghan mission and broader role for military divide Germany

Helmand: Let's hope it stays up

The Afghan government's banner:

Afghan government raises its flag in Marja
A new administration is installed in the southern Afghanistan town. But even as the ceremony is underway, Marines and militants do battle and troops continue searching for buried bombs.

Helmand's governor Gulab Mangal, right, raises the Afghan national flag with a military official in Marja, Helmand province south of Kabul. (Abdul Khaleq / Associated Press / February 25, 2010)...

More here from the Wall St. Journal. Plus:

Afghan army improving, not ready to go it alone

Earlier:

Operation Moshtarak, and ANA problems/ANP Update

Every last one should be remembered

Milburn's actions redefined courage

A few years ago while flipping through The Star's annual Remembrance Day feature, I was taken aback by the photograph of a soldier with a gleam in his eye, a wry smile and a cocked head as if to say, "few people have done what I've done in this war." It dared me to read the accompanying text.

The text told clearly and firmly how the soldier had parachuted behind enemy lines on June 5, 1944, minutes before midnight. He was part of the British and American airborne who were to cut communication lines, destroy bridges and perform general chaos while the assault on the beaches occurred. I was awestruck.

That group of paratroopers dropped from gliders into the French countryside, some of the bravest people who ever lived. Gen. Rommel had anticipated such a drop and had flooded fields and inserted spikes called Rommel's Asparagus, so many of this secret battalion either drowned or were impaled.

That a survivor of such a battle actually lived in Windsor prompted a phone call to Gordon Milburn. Mr. Milburn talked openly and freely regaling me with stories for about 20 minutes.

His voice was an enthusiastic rasp tinged with impishness that all good storytellers seem to have. That picture in the paper was taken a few days before the D-Day launch and, after consuming a bottle of rum with companions, they headed off to what might have been their last photograph.

After we hung up, it occurred to me that Mr. Milburn never mentioned freedom, liberty, evil, way of life, God, or any other platitude.

Although he did say his daughter was Windsor's first female black school principal. It was an epiphany.

A man who had a plethora more freedoms here in Canada than the United States couldn't join the U.S. forces because they were segregated and airborne troops were strictly white during those times. In an era when politicians were calling for dubious state funerals and invading fourth- and fifth- world countries for the flimsiest reasons, Mr. Milburn's actions redefined courage.

To paraphrase Bud Green-span, we saw a man give dignity to war. A man who lifted war up beyond the infantile behaviour of grown men sacrificing the lives of others. All honour to Gordon Milburn of Canada.

Mr. Milburn passed away this week at the age of 90. May he rest in peace.

GREG ATKIN, Windsor

Which Defence Item Would You Delay?

I don't normally put that much faith in single-source stories, but the Globe and Mail seems to have this idea in its head that government-wide spending cuts aren't going to exempt the Department of National Defence (while health care and provincial transfers for education are safe -- but that's a subject for another post). They're basing this on the comments of "one senior government official":

In a briefing this week, a senior government official told journalists that starting in 2011, the government will look for savings by scaling back the rate of growth in program spending. The official indicated that while health care and education transfers to the provinces will be exempt, defence spending will not.

Note what I've bolded. That's probably an indirect quote from the official's remarks, which means that there won't be cuts in terms of less actual money than there was last year. But that's not quite how government budgets work.

How government budgets work is this: The department gets X amount of dollars to work with in Year 1, Y amount in year 2, and so on. The department then plans its spending to happen within those years, as money is made available: project A gets started with year 3's money, project C will use money from years 2 to 5, and so on.

So a government budget cut works as a revision that happens on an annual basis: Z amount for year 3 turns out to be less than expected, therefore project A must either be dropped, or delayed until year 6 when project C will have been completed. Or someone will negotiate a longer payment period for project C in order to accommodate project A, if spending happens sooner.

Now, the Globe focuses on five major capital projects for DND, as targets for reduced spending. None of these items are in danger of actually being cut, mind you; but they can be delayed. Here's what's on the Globe's block:

• Next-generation fighter planes. The current fleet of CF-18s is finishing its third decade in service. Canada needs fighter planes for its NATO commitment, and also for airspace patrols.


• Search-and-rescue aircraft. The current SAR fleet is even older than the CF-18s, and it's never good optics to delay spending on a service that everyone agrees has to be provided by government.


• Land-combat vehicles. This has already been hit by delays due to changing combat requirements. It's a tempting target for delaying due to two reasons: (a) anticipation of a "peace dividend" due to the 2011 Afghan withdrawal, and (b) a serious re-think of the type of operations that Canada should undertake.


• Supply ships. Again, we needs them for our NATO commitment (this time, naval), but our current supply ship fleet is in its sixth decade.


• Arctic patrol ships. Arctic sovereignty has really been a big subject for the current government, which means higher-up decisions on this project are more subject to political pressure than the others.

So: the object of this particular exercise. Note that there is no "all of them equally" or "none at all" choice; such a decision merely avoids the point. You're going to pretend that you're the Defence Minister, and your people have just told you that one project has to be pushed back a year in order to meet your budget restraint goals. Which one will it be?

Who Protects Civilians in Canada's PRT Post-2011?

The last time a military official talked about Canada's mission in Afghanistan, it was pretty clear:

“For the Canadian Forces to meet the direction of the government to be out of Kandahar by December 2011, we must begin our planning now …. It is the end of the presence of Canadian Forces in Kandahar province and it is the end of the military mission throughout Afghanistan …. If PRT remain it will still be a team of civilian officials.”

Clearer still, now, is another couple of statements, one from the commander of Canada's Expeditionary Forces Command, the other from Canada's senior civilian on the ground in Kandahar - this, from the CanWest News Service (emphasis mine):

The general responsible for all Canadian troops overseas was emphatic this week that his forces will not provide security for Canada's Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar City beyond next summer.

"It is cease operations across the board in July, 2011," Lt.-Gen Marc Lessard said in an interview. "The (operational mentor and liaison team), the battle group, the PRT, helicopters. Operations cease."

However, the parliamentary order that Canada's soldiers come home next year has put diplomats and aid workers at the PRT in a quandary because Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently said that Afghanistan is to become "a strictly civilian mission" after 2011 and would continue to be a huge recipient of Canadian aid.

The difficulty with the prime minister's stance is that public servants and police that Ottawa has sent to Kandahar City to oversee aid projects and to counsel local authorities on such issues as education, medical care, water management, policing and governance are entirely dependent upon several hundred Canadian infantrymen and combat engineers for their safety and transport.

"There is a political decision that we are awaiting guidance on and when we get it, the civilians will know what they are doing," said Ben Rowswell, Canada's representative in Kandahar (RoCK), when asked about the apparent contradiction in the Harper government's positions on the withdrawal and a continuing civilian mission....

Gee, I guess those who make "political decisions" didn't see THAT coming, did they?

Don't negotiate with the Taliban

Terry Glavin and some Afghans are pretty passionate:

An Audience With Berhanuddin Rabbani, The Grand Old Man Of The Afghan Mujahideen

KABUL – At his massively fortified residence in this city’s posh Wazir Akbar Khan district, Berhanuddin Rabbani, the godfather of Afghanistan's warlord bloc, uttered a dire warning. Any "exit strategy" from Afghanistan that proposes a power-sharing deal with the Taliban could plunge the country back into the raging, fratricidal warfare that preceded September 11, 2001.

“This is possible,” he said. “As I read history, when a nation’s problems become this complex and they are not solved, that could result in violence and revolutions and other unwanted things. Water is very soft, but if you put it under pressure, it will explode.”

Throwing his formidable weight behind the surging opposition to Afghan president Hamid Karzai’s backroom entreaties to the Taliban, Rabbani warned that any hint of political concessions to the Pashtun-based terrorist movement could provoke Afghans to take up arms against their own government. "There is a limit to the patience of the people. Beyond that limit, no one can be patient anymore."

My report of our conversation appears in today's National Post, but it's the background to all this that is especially chilling. It's not just speculation about what might happen. The big story here is about what is happening already, and as always, pereption counts for everything in Afghanistan, and there is no intrigue like Afghan intrigue.

No matter how well-intentioned, President Karzai's "peace at any cost" approach to the Taliban's counterrevolutionary insurgency is bonding the conservative leaders of Afghanistan's religious and ethnic minorities with some of Afghanistan's most progressive forces - women's rights leaders, human rights activists and pro-democracy reformers. The anti-appeasement revolt is directly related to an all-out, last-ditch effort to entrench a transparent, functioning and accountable democracy in this country, with Abdullah Abdullah, Karzai's front-running challenger in last year's fraud-plagued presidential election, digging in for the long haul...

Read on.

Denmark: One Euro country where people support their Afghan mission

Further to this post,

Canada after Afstan: Demilitarization?

a story you'll not see in the Canadian media (note the chart at the end):

Denmark Rallies Public Behind Afghan War

Among allied forces fighting in Afghanistan, few countries have deployed a bigger share of their armed forces than Denmark, and fewer still have taken higher levels of casualties. But the small Scandinavian country is emerging as an unlikely example of how to maintain public support for the war.

The popularity of the international campaign in Afghanistan has fallen across Europe and in the U.S. On Tuesday, the Dutch government set a June 9 date for general elections, nearly one year ahead of schedule. The move followed the unraveling of Netherlands' coalition government last weekend after it failed win support to extend the mandate of the nation's 1,600 troops in Afghanistan, presaging a likely withdrawal this year.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Tuesday that the NATO military alliance is facing "very serious, long-term, systemic problems" sparked by European nations' unwillingness to adequately fund their militaries [as for us, see "The CF's budget--and missions--after Afstan"]...

the Danes have largely maintained public support for the effort, selling the mission as a humanitarian effort rather than simply protection against a terrorist threat, and building consensus among political parties. They have reaped the benefits of a largely supportive media and the country has, to some degree, rediscovered its pride in an active military.

"The key to sustaining public support is an elite consensus that includes politicians in government and opposition as well as key opinion leaders: influential intellectuals, academics and columnists," says Dr. Peter Viggo Jakobsen, a security expert at the University of Copenhagen.

Denmark has paid a high price in Afghanistan. Its 750 troops represent almost 5% of its entire military, including reserves—among the highest in Afghanistan. Of the total, 31 Danish troops have died there, an allied casualty rate behind only Canada and Estonia, which has just 150 soldiers fighting.

Yet throughout a difficult 2009, polls consistently showed around a half of Danes surveyed by TNS Gallup believed Danish troops should be in Afghanistan; only one-third said they didn't. In NATO nations such as the U.K., Germany and Netherlands, meanwhile, polls reveal over half wanting troops back home.

"If you can't win the public opinion, you have lost the war," Danish Defense Minister Søren Gade said in a recent interview [QUITE--and our government has not really made much of an effort--when was the last time you saw Prime Minister Harper give a speech, or television interview, about Afstan?]...

Denmark's forces in Afghanistan—along with Britain, the Netherlands, Estonia [see "Estonians fighting in Afstan"] and Canada—have formed a rump [a sad yet very true word] of non-U.S. allies essential to the U.S.-led war effort that do battle in Helmand province and other Afghanistan hot spots, contributing to high casualty rates for these countries' contingents.

Now some of those nations are growing weary of the effort. The Netherlands and Canada have set pull-out dates, and some foreign armies remain reluctant to fight in restive regions like Helmand. British politicians face a hostile media that chronicles the return of every dead soldier's coffin.

It's a different story in Denmark. "On editorial pages, there has been a total agreement that it is a necessary war," says Kristian Mouritzen, the foreign editor of Berlingske Tidende, one of Denmark's big three dailies.Mr. Gade, a former Danish army officer, said a key to winning the public was giving reporters deep access to soldiers, who were allowed to talk.

When troops say, " 'We did a job and we did it good, and it is worth doing,' then it is very hard indeed for a lot of people to oppose, because those are the men and women who risk their lives," he said [that certainly is not the case in Canada: "We support the troops but not the mission", say many]...

Danish defence ministry's Afghan page is here. Earlier:

President Obama recognizes Danish military effort in Afstan

Update: Good point in a comment by Brasidas at Milnet.ca (should have noticed myself, applies to all the countries in the chart):

Can't say I like how that table seems to say that one in twenty Canadians sent there's a dead man. One figure's talking about the number of troops actively deployed, another's the total number of dead over the course of the mission, and a third divides the two. When the losses were over several rotations.

Babbling made the same point in an earlier post on another subject:

...If one takes the 139 fatalities suffered by the Canadian contingent in Afghanistan since 2002, and divides it by the roughly 2,800 currently deployed personnel in country, one comes up with a number just shy of 5%. But dividing a current number by a cumulative number is a nonsensical operation. A less innumerate exercise would be to divide the total number of fatal casualties (139) since 2002 by the total number of deployed personnel since 2002 (somewhere north of 25,000 by my rough estimate). Call it about one half of one percent. Epic fail on the high-school math...

Afghan with gun (and kisses)

Lovely photo (one of several) by Terry Glavin on a recent road trip north of Kabul:

A Day In The Countryside
...

We came upon this fierce looking bearded guy in a turban, carrying a long-barrelled shotgun. He was out hunting birds.

He walked up to me bold as a bullock and kissed me on both cheeks and introduced himself as Assan Ullah.

And a pleasant Salaam Aleikum to yourself as well, bubba, says I tae him...

Update thought: Nice jacket, call GQ.

MRAP news

Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicles are a certifiable Big Deal^TM these days, and for good reason: they save lives. But, further to this post, they don't come without drawbacks and trade-offs, especially when it comes to reliability, capacity, and weight.

So this news from Jane's is of interest:

The US Department of Defense (DoD) has awarded over USD1 billion in delivery orders for redesigned mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles that are intended to enhance mobility compared with previous models.

Navistar received the largest order with a USD752 million contract to provide 1,050 enhanced International MaxxPro Dash MRAPs for the US Marine Corps (USMC) by the end of August 2010.

In a 16 February statement Navistar said it chose to redesign the Dash's suspension by integrating a DXM independent suspension solution to bolster the vehicle's off-road capability.

Afghanistan's difficult terrain has limited the mobility of some MRAP models, whose weight and straight-axle suspensions are not ideal for the country's terrain.

An 'extensive trade study' led Navistar to the new suspension, which is provided by Hendrickson Truck Suspension Systems and AxleTech International, the statement said.

Gordon Wolverton, Navistar's programme manager for MaxxPro, told Jane's that this design was selected in part because it could be easily retrofitted on existing MaxxPro fleets without cutting or welding.

At the same time General Dynamics Land Systems - Canada received a USD227 million delivery order for 250 RG-31 Mk5E MRAP vehicles and "associated engineering change proposal upgrades to include an independent suspension system", according to a 16 February Pentagon contract announcement.

Although this news deals specifically with U.S. purchases, there are a couple of interesting points from a Canadian perspective.

First, it's nice to see a Canadian plant - GDLS - getting additional business. And the fact that the RG-31, warts and all, is still filling an important niche in the best-equipped military in the world helps vindicate our own purchases, if any such reinforcement was needed for that decision.

But second, I find it interesting that the purchase is to include a suspension system upgrade. One of the knocks against the Nyala has always been its reliability:

“Army records show that at the height of fierce fighting in Afghanistan last summer, more than a quarter of the RG-31 fleet were in the shop with maintenance problems.

The vehicles had a series of electrical and software glitches, many relating to the roof-mounted remote-controlled machine-gun [DID: the Kongsberg Protector M151 RWS, also used on US Stryker vehicles].

Nyala maintenance logs, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, show the vehicles arrived with a series of minor defects.

Records show that between mid-June and mid-July last year, 13 of the 50 Nyalas – some with as few as 550 km on them – were deemed “non-mission capable” by the army.

The ratio has since improved, with only one or two of the current complement of 75 RG-31s down for maintenance at any time.”

All this makes me wonder whether or not the CF is even considering retrofitting its RG-31s with the suspension upgrade our cousins to the south are buying. From what I understand of the design concepts, this is a "bolt-on" solution.

Of course, that would require money. And as far as I can tell, DND isn't going to have much extra for the foreseeable future.

Canada after Afstan: Demilitarization?

After the--for many if not most Canadians--unhappy and disconcerting experience of actual war, I suspect the US defense secretary's remarks will be quite applicable chez nous:

Gates: Europe's demilitarization has gone too far

Europeans' aversion to military force is limiting NATO's ability to fight wars effectively, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.

In remarks to a forum on rewriting the basic mission plan for the NATO alliance, Gates called for far-reaching reforms in an organization that was created 61 years ago as a political and military bulwark against the former Soviet Union and its Red Army...

"The demilitarization of Europe - where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it - has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st," he told an audience filled with uniformed military officers from many of NATO's 28 member countries...

...[Secretary Gates spoke of] the real world conflicts NATO is fighting today - with about 120,000 troops, including U.S. forces, in Afghanistan, and the prospect of staying there in some numbers for years to come [not us or the Dutch]...

One suspects a clear sign of our future demilitarization will be in coming budgets. As I wrote a month ago (end of post):

...I think it pretty unlikely any Canadian government will send the Army into really serious combat again for some time to come...

Sometimes you just have to smile

From Peter Worthington's Sun column today about Canadian retirees working in Florida:

My friend, Mike, tells the story of one retiree, a Wal-Mart greeter, whom everyone liked but who just couldn’t seem to get to work on time.

Every day he was late. Sometimes five minutes, others 10 or 15. This presented problems for his boss, who really liked him, admired his attitude, appreciated that he worked diligently, was honest, tidy, clean-shaven, sharp minded and a credit to both himself and the company.

He was also living testimony to the benefits of Wal-Mart’s “older persons are friendly” policy.

Finally, the boss called him into the office for a talk.

“Charlie,” he said, “your work is great, you do a bang-up job and we really appreciate you. But I’ve got to tell you, you coming in late so often is really bothersome. Can you do something about it?”

“Yes, boss, I know that’s a failing and I’m working on it,” Charlie said.

“Well, that’s good. You’re a team player and that’s what I like to hear. It’s odd, though, you coming in late. I know you were in the military. What did they say when you came in late there?”

“They said ‘Good morning, general, can I get you a cup of coffee, sir?’ ”

Torch video interview with Canadian Afstan helo commander noticed by German blog

Further to Babbling's post,

LCol Jeff Smyth

an excerpt from Public Affairs, followed by the Google translation (slightly edited):

...Drüben, beim jederzeit lesenswerten kanadischen Blog The Torch, hatten die Jungs am letzten Sonntag einen Beitrag, den ich sehr bemerkenswert fand. Da erzählt ein kanadischer Task-Force Kommandeur direkt aus Kandahar was über seinen Einsatz und sein tägliches Geschäft in Afghanistan. Und zwar per Skype! Shock and awe. Das ganze schnell noch sauber mitgeschnitten (keine Ahnung wie das geht bei Skype) und dann bei You Tube hochgeladen. Fertig ist die gut gemachte Information aus dem Einsatzland. Ist vielleicht nicht so spektakulär wie ein General, der in Washington das versammelte Pentagon-Pressekorps brieft, aber mindestens genauso informativ. Und dabei einfach zu produzieren. Der Fragesteller scheint übrigens ein Blogger zu sein. Doppel-Bonus...

...Over there, at the any time readable Canadian Blog The Torch, the guys on last Sunday had a contribution which I found quite remarkable. In it a Canadian task force commander directly from Kandahar says something about his dedication and his daily business in Afghanistan. And by Skype! Shock and awe. The whole quickly yet cleanly recorded (no idea how to do it with Skype) and then uploaded at You Tube. The well-done information is ready for use. Perhaps not as spectacular as a general who briefs the press corps gathered in Washington, but at least as informative. Incidentally, the questioner seems to be a blogger. Double bonus...

CF beginning wind-down of Haiti mission

Operation HESTIA's job coming to an end:

Canadian military forces are starting to withdraw from crisis work in Haiti and the government is nearing a "tipping point" where many of 50 Canadians still missing six weeks after a massive earthquake will be deemed dead. That will boost the current confirmed death toll of 34 Canadians.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said at a news conference Monday that Canada is "beginning to progressively see the withdrawal of Canadian Forces assets" as commercial air service is now available on the Caribbean island and the government of Haiti, the United Nations and aid agencies have a handle on emergency relief efforts.

HMCS Halifax, the navy vessel that was stationed off Jacmel, Haiti, for the last few weeks, and her 220-member crew, departed late last week and are due home March 1, navy Capt. Chris Dickinson, director of current operations, strategic joint staff, said in an interview. He said 1,681 soldiers, sailors and air force are still in Haiti and officials will be careful to ensure their services are replaced by other agencies as they return to Canada...

Cannon said Canadian Forces personnel are coming home as the emergency phase of international earthquake relief efforts move to longer term assistance programs.

Dickinson said the military personnel were never intended to stay longer than 30, 40 or 60 days, depending on their assignments. HMCS Halifax was due home for a refit to extend its lifespan and other personnel and equipment are needed as Canadian Forces prepare for a new rotation into Afghanistan, among other assignments...

But will there be greater CF involvment with the UN peackeeping force in the country (our current official strength is five staff officers)?

...Cannon said Canadians will have an ongoing participation in the UN stabilization mission in Haiti called Minustah...

In any event the deployment to Haiti does not seem to have had any great impact on other Army commitments, an earlier concern:

The Army, Haiti and Afstan

AfPak: Josh Wingrove going Globeite?/A true Globeite

One has been generally impressed with the pretty straight reporting of the Globe and Mail's new man in the 'stan. Now however he seems to be catching the paper's stinkin' agenda. His story today:

Top Taliban’s arrest an ominous signal
Recent detentions of moderates in Pakistan push Taliban further from conciliation, analysts fear

The NY Times story:

Pakistani Reports Capture of Taliban Leader

In another blow to the Taliban senior leadership, Pakistani authorities have captured Mullah Abdul Kabir, a member of the group’s inner circle and a leading military commander against American forces in eastern Afghanistan, according to a Pakistani intelligence official...

Yet again the paper's editorial writers and the "news" staff are at sixes and sevens. As Norman Spector puts it after listing the Globe story above:

...

--Two papers in one!

According to plan - Globe and Mail

the combination of this offensive and Pakistan's capture of some of Mullah Omar's lieutenants have made this a good month in Afghanistan...

Then there's ace Globeite reporter, columnist, whatever Doug Saunders--a letter sent to the paper and not published:

Pakistan, the Taliban, and Kashmir‏

Doug Saunders is rather confused about the geography of Pakistan and its dispute over Kashmir with India. He writes (Let's refocus: Kashmir, not Kabul, Feb. 20) that Pakistan, with CIA help, "captured the Taliban's second-ranking Afghan leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, in northern Pakistan." In fact Mullah Baradar was captured in Karachi, the country's largest city and seaport (as reported by the Globe's Paul Koring on Feb. 17), in southern Pakistan far away from the frontier area with Afghanistan that is the Taliban's stronghold.

Mr. Saunders also writes this about Kashmir: "For India, resolution is worth a loss of face. For Pakistan, it never will be." Hardly. India will accept no resolution of the dispute that lessens the sovereignty it claims over the part of Kashmir it now holds--the largest. Such a resolution on the other hand is the only type acceptable to Pakistan, but would involve a loss of face no Indian government could endure. It is moreover simply inaccurate to claim, as Mr. Saunders does, that "The two nuclear powers came very close to resolving their Kashmir conflict in 2008." Broad talks on several matters, including Kashmir, may have been making some minor progress; there were no signs of a breakthrough on the key Kashmir question.

The essence of the dispute is that Pakistan does not accept the legitimacy of the accession of the Muslim-majority Indian princely state of Kashmir to India, rather than Pakistan, upon the two countries' independence in 1947. Whatever one may think of the merits of each country's case, it is noteworthy that India refuses to accept that a plebiscite be held in Kashmir on the territory's status--as called for by the UN Security Council in 1948.

References:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2008/12/02/stories/2008120259951000.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/2.stm
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kashun47.htm

30 days in Afghanistan

U.S. Public Affairs personnel are using emerging media in a way that puts the CF, quite frankly, to shame. And, just to rub salt in the wound, they're "embedded" with Canadian and ANA troops, asking about Canadian stories:





Note that the videos are hosted at YouTube. Not because the DoD doesn't have the resources to host a video itself, but because having your video searchable on YouTube ensures more people will see it.

To my friends in Ottawa: it's not rocket science, people.

Operation Moshtarak, and ANA problems/ANP Update

BruceR. at Flit discusses them, pointing out many are of ISAF's own making:

1) Marja: not going too well

The ISAF move into Marja, in Helmand province, which Canadian OMLT personnel are participating in, seems to be turning into more of the usual Afghan story. WashPost:

The civilian team's most important immediate task will be to assist the newly appointed district governor, Haji Zahir, who recently returned to Afghanistan after 15 years in Germany. Zahir plans to make his first trip to Marja in the coming days...

2) Marja: not going too well, 2: the ANA performance

The ANA in Helmand is not acquitting itself well in the eyes or Marines or accompanying reporters:

Statements from Kabul have said the Afghan military is planning the missions and leading both the fight and the effort to engage with Afghan civilians caught between the Taliban and the newly arrived troops.

But that assertion conflicts with what is visible in the field...

...They have become our door-kickers. And for that they don't need their own leaders: in fact, stronger leadership on their part would now be an even greater inconvenience to us than the lack of it. Note how the story is about a platoon of Iraqis joins a company of Marines and then is split up among its squads, not treated in any way as an extra, discrete platoon. So what exactly is that Captain commanding it, Amanullah, leading? Yes, he may be an unimpressive leader, but was he unimpressive before he was deprived of any real authority, or because of it? And how exactly now will he reclaim it in the eyes of his men as well as his own mind, short of passively resisting Marine authority until they are rotated somewhere else?..

Chivers and the Times portray this as an ANA failing: "officers and soldiers follow behind the Americans and do what they are told." But that is what we demanded they do. Why is it not an ISAF failing that they could not give this operation, or a significant part of it, to an Afghan battalion or higher level organization with imbedded enablers, working in their own box? Would they have done things differently? Certainly. Badly? Probably...

Update: Excerpts from a story by an American ANP trainer on the still serious problems on that front:

Afghan mess bigger than we thought
...
At the operational level, where I worked with the Afghan National Police (ANP) for 15 months, things look a lot worse.

Operationally, the effort is broken. Assets are misdirected, poorly managed and misused. Graft and corruption in the Afghan forces are endemic, and coalition forces unwittingly enable that corruption. Let's break that into two parts:

Misdirected, mismanaged and misused:

There are several related facets to this issue. Aid agencies, nongovernmental agencies and coalition state and defense departments have all poured money and materiel into the country in poorly coordinated efforts. The Afghan National Army (ANA) has received orders of magnitude more money than the ANP. In any counterinsurgency effort, the police play a vital role in maintaining the rule of law at the local level, but the Afghan police force is pathetically underresourced and undermanned.

It is misemployed. At a meeting of regional police commanders, one commander complained about the use of his police to fight the Taliban. The police are neither trained nor armed adequately to fight the Taliban. He complained about orders to accomplish an army mission...

...length of tour for those mentoring ministry-level efforts is simply too short. Six to eight months is barely enough time to gain an understanding of system dynamics, let alone effect meaningful change. The attitude this engenders in the Afghans is "wait and see." They are reluctant to embrace recommendations from the current mentor because he will change in six months - so they push back out of wariness and fatigue...

LCol Jeff Smyth

The most exhilarating moments I've ever spent in the air have been in a helicopter. Specifically, one low and fast ride in a CH-135 Twin Huey back at RMC, and more recently, a couple of jaunts between KAF and Camp Nathan Smith (if you haven't watched the shaky video at that previous link, I heartily recommend it). On a less visceral level, I appreciate the fact that Tac Hel's entire focus is on facilitating the operations of another element; it's the most service-oriented pointy-end part of the CF, in my opinion.

So I was thrilled to speak recently with LCol Jeff Smyth by Skype from Kandahar Air Field. Not only is he the CO of 408 Tactical Helicopter Squadron in Edmonton, but he's also currently Commanding Officer of the Canadian Helicopter Force (Afghanistan). The videos below are about twenty-two minutes long in total, and touch on everything from the type of training and missions Smyth's Griffon and Chinook crews are flying, to little known Air Force interactions with the fledgling ANA Air Corps, to the reliability of the helicopters under his command - a couple of which might have flown in Vietnam!

I also think it's notable that Smyth's choppers have moved, on average, 2800 troops and 170,000 lbs of cargo - or over 300 trucks' worth - per month this past year. That's a lot of personnel and materiel put out of the reach of the insurgency's biggest weapon: IEDs.

Pay no attention to the stumbling Dr. Evil stand-in asking the questions.







More on our helo crews' participation in recent air-mobile operations recently:

“This is the shit,” declared Lieutenant-Colonel Jeff Smyth, the officer in charge of Canadian helicopter operations in Afghanistan [more here on the choppers], in an interview at Kandahar Air Field ahead of the operation. “In my career, in 21 years, this is what I've been training the entire time for. This is the big show for us.”

A big thank you to this busy pilot and leader for taking the time to speak with me, and to the PAffOs at CEFCOM and KAF who facilitated the interview.

Video: Air Force Griffon, Camp Bastion to KAF

Great way to get a feel for the countryside at Helmand and Kandahar (note the Gatling Dillon Aero’s M134D, more here, and the C6 machine gun):

From the source:

"Feb 13 2010 - After covering the opening stages of Operation Moshtarak [more here] in the southern province of Helmand, Tara and I where escorted from the British Base of Camp Bastion back home to KAF on a Canadian Griffon helicopter.

The journey took 1 hour. Some of the most stunning scenery I have ever seen. The shots are a little shaky. But so would you be at 500 feet and no doors."

Via Paul at Celestial Junk and Theo Spark's 'Last of the Few'.

The CF's budget--and missions--after Afstan

The subject got quite a bit of media attention Friday, Feb. 19. First a Globe and Mail story:

Afghan pullout sets budget quandary for Harper
Should expected savings of up to $1.5-billion after troop repatriation be used trim the deficit or to keep priming the military?
...
This spring, the government will update its defence spending projections for the next three years.

Two new think-tank papers put the estimate of savings when troops return at $1-billion to $1.5-billion.

“It may be that during this year's budget speech, which will concentrate on the way in which the government plans to deal with the massive budget deficit, the government may mention that the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan will result in savings of approximately $1-billion annually,” wrote retired colonel Brian MacDonald in a paper released Thursday by the Conference of Defence Associations [text here].

Mr. MacDonald notes that the government has already signalled it expects to lop $765-million in 2011-12 from the $943-million in special funds allocated this year to the military for the Afghan mission.

But he argues the government has yet to really clarify the plans for the military's base budget.

The current public projections for 2011-12 show the main budget declining slightly and don't even include the 2.7-per-cent annual increase that the Harper government promised in its 2008 defence strategy. An update to that figure this spring, and new spending projections for the following year, will indicate whether the military's multiyear spending plans will include big-ticket items, or restraint...

The Conference Board of Canada argues [text here, see p. 8] that the withdrawal from Afghanistan provides an opportunity to slow increases in military spending that have averaged 8 per cent per year since 2000...

Then a column by Canwest News' Don Martin, of the old-school, hard-nosed, seen it all, no guff but jovial, poseur persona:

Budgetary battle looms for our Armed Forces

...a military which enjoyed a 57 per cent surge in funding over five years is suddenly preparing to fight against restraint as the government's $56-billion deficit elimination project moves onto the Conservative agenda.

Internal documents show the Forces are banking on a $2 billion increase in next month's budget to bring national defence spending to $21.1 billion. But the good times stop rolling after this year and military planners are already scrambling for ammunition to take a shot at new funding ideas.

Their timing is lousy. The Forces will be shifting from full tilt to full stop on the battlefield at the precise moment when the Conservative government takes aim at easy cost-cutting targets...

The question looms large: What next? It takes a very shiny object to catch a finance minister's favourable eye, particularly when he's been ordered into the era of spending cuts, and running, flying or sailing troops around domestic bases is not exactly an attention-grabber. This means the must-seize military moment has arrived for Canadian Forces to create a blueprint for continued funding with causes that have mass voter appeal. Be it stamping out Somalian pirating, fortifying our Arctic boundary, bolstering our search and rescue capabilities or some fresh brainstorm developing inside DND headquarters, the Forces need a post-Afghanistan reason-to-exist recalibration.

When deadly force gives way to peacekeeping with brass waiting around for new equipment to arrive years late and over budget, soldiers could again disappear from the government's priority radar.

Then, sadly, Canada's Armed Forces are vulnerable to an attack which hurts them the most -- a direct hit on their bottom line.

Note what Mr Martin writes:

...the must-seize military moment has arrived for Canadian Forces to create a blueprint for continued funding with causes that have mass voter appeal...

Good flippin' grief. It is not for the military to identify specific missions that may require funding. It the function of the civilian government, from time-to-time, to call on the CF to carry out specific missions that the government decides are in the national interest (the military clearly should be allowed to give their best professional advice in advance, especially when there are competing possibilities). That is the essence of civilian control of the military. Mr Martin would be loud amongst those screaming bloody murder were the CF to be perceived as challenging that control by telling the government what the CF should be doing. What a hypocrite despite the "sadly" thrown into his last sentence above.

More broadly, it is the function of the government to identify for the military the general types of missions that they may be required to perform. It is then up to the military to tell the government what numbers and types of forces and equipments are required and roughly what they may cost. The government finally should make the decision about what capabilities it is ultimately willing to pay for.

But our recent governments, Liberal and Conservative, have been both unwilling and (more important) incapable to engage in the sort of serious, and politically fraught (some traditional missions may have to be ditched and there may be job losses somewhere), analytic thinking that is required for such an exercise. Sadly, the CF themselves have done little or nothing to encourage such thinking, each service being afraid that it may be gored in the process. For more along these lines see the end of this post:

British defence budget woes--a lesson for Canada too?

The key thing to watch for future budgets is the 2.7% promised ongoing annual increase--and even that is hardly what it seems. From a 2009 CDA piece by Col. MacDonald:

...
The Canada First Defence Strategy Budget

2008 also saw the tabling of the Canada First Defence Strategy (CFDS). An unusual aspect of the CFDS was the inclusion of a long-range funding formula which had three key elements. First, was a promise of 2.7% “Nominal” growth, which includes an expected inflation factor of 2.1%, and therefore 0.6% “Real” growth in the defence budget...

More on our government's future, meagre, defence budget plans here, here, here and here. Remember that our defence spending is only some 1.2% of GDP--and is likely to go quite a bit lower as a percentage. Crunch, crunch, crunch.

Dutch out of Afstan after all (but maybe not completely)

Further to this post,

Afstan: Canada to be the odd man out?

at least Canada will not be the odd man out after all (though our government plans to pull out lock, stock and smoking barrel while the Dutch may keep their F-16s). From DutchNews.nl:

The Dutch government collapsed in the early hours of Saturday morning over Labour's insistence that the Netherlands pull out of Afghanistan this year.

After two days of intensive talks and a bitter parliamentary debate, it had become increasingly clear the gulf between prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende and deputy prime minister Wouter Bos was too great to bridge.

Labour leader Bos stated earlier this week that he wanted a decision on Nato's request to the Netherlands to stay in Afghanistan at Friday's cabinet meeting. And that decision would have to be a no, he said repeatedly...

The prime minister will now offer his government's resignation to the queen, who is skiing in Lech, Austria.

This is the fourth Balkenende government not to complete a formal four year term. Two others collapsed over political infighting and one was a minority cabinet.

A general election will take place within three months and will not affect the local elections which take place on March 3.

Withdrawal

The collapse of the government means that the withdrawal of Dutch troops from Afghanistan will now begin in August because caretaker ministers are not allowed to make controversial decisions [emphasis added]...

Dutch politicians, unlike ours--especially the government, had the decency as serious people actually to discuss the substance of the issue. More from Radio Nederland:

The collapse of the coalition government in the Netherlands automatically means that Dutch forces will be withdrawn from the Afghan province of Uruzgan as of 1 August. The withdrawal of the 1,500 military personnel currently in the province will be completed by the end of December. The move is mandatory under a government decision taken in late 2007, in which the Netherlands signed up for another two-year stint in Uruzgan beginning on 1 August 2008.

The Netherlands is the first country of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to withdraw its troops. The only Dutch contribution to ISAF that is expected to remain consists of four F-16 fighter planes based at Kandahar Airfield [emphasis added, our government is too chicken, to be frank, to deploy our CF-18 Hornets to Afstan]. Some civilian personnel of the foreign affairs and development aid ministries may remain in Uruzgan. NATO is expected to task another member state with the activities currently being carried out by the Dutch [has to be the US one must think [emphasis added]...

Multinational
Currently, the Dutch part of the Task Force Uruzgan comprises some 1,500 military personnel. Five hundred other Dutch troops are stationed elsewhere in Afghanistan. Six hundred soldiers of the Task Force Uruzgan form a 'Battle Group'. In addition, there is a Dutch-led Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT), a Special Forces unit. It also includes Apache attack helicopters, heavy artillery and logistics units. A sizeable Australian Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force and smaller French and Slovakian units are also part of the Task Force Uruzgan...

Plus from the NY Times:

The question plaguing military planners was whether a Dutch departure would embolden the war’s critics in other allied countries, where debate over deployment is continuing, and hasten the withdrawal of their troops as well.

“If the Dutch go, which is the implication of all this, that could open the floodgates for other Europeans to say, ‘The Dutch are going, we can go, too,’ ” said Julian Lindley-French, professor of defense strategy at the Netherlands Defense Academy in Breda. “The implications are that the U.S. and the British are going to take on more of the load [Canada not being part of that Anglosphere though the Aussies still are].”..

Since taking office, Mr. Obama has been pressing the non-American members of the coalition to increase their contribution, seeking up to 10,000 additional troops. While NATO has pledged around 7,000 troops, critics of the alliance’s efforts accuse it of fuzzy math: counting up to 2,000 soldiers who were already in Afghanistan but had been scheduled to leave after the recent election.

And even the 7,000 figure was notional [emphasis added]; NATO is holding a “force generation conference” this week at which time official pledges will be made, and there are questions about whether it will reach that number [more here]...

Although American officials are concerned that an exodus by the Dutch could prompt other allies to follow suit, a sudden rush to exit seemed unlikely...

Quelle humiliation! No mention that the CF are pulling out in 2011.

Update: PM's statement today:

The 1,600 Dutch troops in Afghanistan will begin leaving the war-torn country in August, Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said Sunday, a day after his coalition government collapsed over opposition to extending the country's mission beyond its scheduled end this summer.

Appearing on Dutch television Sunday, Balkenende said the Netherlands will pull out of Uruzgan province, where 21 Dutch soldiers have died since they were first deployed there in 2006.

"Our task as the lead nation ends in August this year," he said...

When asked about the deployment Sunday, Balkenende said his caretaker government was bound by an earlier decision to give up the command position in Uruzgan as of Aug. 1.

The pullout will take as long as three months, with the last of the Dutch soldiers leaving the volatile province by December...

So does that leave some wriggle-room to keep the 500 military personnel not in Uruzgan, at least quite a few of them (and the F-16s)? Unlike our total bug-out.

Thanks for Supporting the Troops!

1) Even the CBC reported a good turnout at this event:

Supporting the Troops in Trenton

2) On a smaller scale, here's some photos from a Friday fundraiser in Thunder Bay to support members of the Lake Superior Scottish Regiment regimental family.

Thanks to everyone who supports the troops, whether you attended these events, or back the sacrifices and hard work CF members do every day.

John Babcock, 1900-2010, R.I.P.

The last Canadian veteran of World War One has died.

This, from the Governor General/Commander-in-Chief:

It is with a deep sense of loss that my husband, Jean-Daniel Lafond, and I learned of the passing of John Babcock, the man whom Canadians had come to know as the last surviving soldier from World War I.

He always gave the best of himself, right until the venerable age of 109.

You know how dear the members of the Canadian Forces and our veterans are to my heart. And while I am deeply moved and saddened, I am also very honoured to be the Commander-in-Chief and Governor General to pay final tribute to Mr. Babcock.

On behalf of all Canadians, we extend our deepest sympathies to his family and many friends who mourn his passing. May his accomplishments and his example inspire many future generations to serve their nation.

Condolences to Mr. Babcock's family as we see the end of an era pass.

Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts!

Scott Taylor, pontificating in full "end of days" mode:

Closer to home, Operation Medusa, launched in the fall of 2006, was proclaimed to have successfully broken the back of the Taliban insurgency. This particular offensive was chronicled in Chris Wattie's book Contact Charlie: The Canadian Army, the Taliban and the Battle that Saved Afghanistan. Given that this work was published in September 2008, the last phrase in the title had long since been moved from the "wishful thinking" bin into the "delusional dream" cupboard.

Except...Chris Wattie's book wasn't about Op Medusa:

While Scott Taylor is certainly entitled to his opinion regarding recent counter-insurgency operations in southern Afghanistan, his reference to my book Contact Charlie does not build confidence in his command of the facts (RE: "Breaking the Taliban's back is just so many words," Feb. 10).

Mr. Taylor refers to my book as a chronicle of Operation Medusa, the Canadian battle group's offensive against the Taliban in Zhari/Panjwayi districts in the fall of 2006, suggesting that its full title, Contact Charlie: The Canadian Army, the Taliban and the Battle That Saved Afghanistan, belongs in "the 'delusional dream' cupboard."

Unfortunately for Mr. Taylor's rather belaboured point, my book was entirely about the operations of Task Force Orion, the first Canadian battle group on the ground in Kandahar Province, in the summer of 2006, specifically in the months of May to August leading up to Operation Medusa. Medusa was carried out by the next battle group, built around the 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, which succeeded Task Force Orion.

All of this is made quite clear in my book and at least three other published works about Canadian operations in southern Afghanistan, not to mention dozens if not hundreds of media reports on the subject.

As for the "delusional" title, it is drawn from a quote by then brigadier-general David Fraser, whose point was that this first Canadian battle group in Kandahar prevented a Taliban offensive aimed at capturing (at least temporarily) the provincial capital of Kandahar City, which would have had potentially disastrous consequences for the entire Afghan mission.

Mr. Taylor may not agree with Mr. Fraser's analysis, or the thesis of my book, but it would lend some credibility to his critique if he at least read it first.

That's gonna leave a mark.

You'd figure after getting publicly spanked on matters of factual accuracy a few times now, that he'd be a bit more diligent vetting his own work before submitting it for publication. Maybe he's just one of those people who think any attention is good attention.