CF in Afstan post-2011? PM still "the biggest stumbling block"
That's what he may be, as Matthew Fisher of Canwest News put it--see this post:
Upperdate: One colonel's view:
Maybe the CF could stay in Afstan post-2011 after allMr Harper's latest:
Looks like some opposition politicos may be getting reasonable...
...“I think we’ve been very clear. We’re working according to the parliamentary resolution that was adopted in 2008 by which Canada’s military mission will end and will transition to a civilian and development mission at the end of 2011. And that continues to be our workplan according to the resolution adopted by Parliament.”..But he's not telling the truth:
...Update thought: Can't the fellow even try to get "Yes" for an answer? What must Secretary of State Clinton think?The problem is the Commons' motion (not a "parliamentary" one) of March 12, 2008, makes no mention of the CF's leaving Afghanistan; it refers only to Kandahar:
...this extension of Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan is approved by this House expressly on the condition that:
The government is simply lying--there is sadly no other word--when it says the motion demands "the military mission will come to an end in 2011"....
(c) the government of Canada notify NATO that Canada will end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011, and, as of that date, the redeployment of Canadian Forces troops out of Kandahar and their replacement by Afghan forces start as soon as possible, so that it will have been completed by December 2011...
Upperdate: One colonel's view:
Canadians could train Afghans after 2011: military
The Canadian military is capable of training Afghan security forces past 2011, but it could be a challenging task depending on the number of experienced personnel required, the leader of Canada's mentoring teams in Afghanistan said Friday.
Col. Ian Creighton, who became commander of Canada's Operational and Mentoring Liaison Teams [they go outside the wire and fight alongside the Afghans--see middle of this post, plus here and here--not what is now envisaged for a post-2011 training mission, see following para] a month ago, said the Canadian Forces could continue training the Afghan police and army if Ottawa decided in favour of it.
"Could we do training up in Kabul or some place like that at some training centre [we are in fact already sending a fairly small number of "inside the wire" trainers to Kabul]? Sure, absolutely, if that's where the government wants to go," Creighton said. "How many? Not sure."
Creighton said maintaining a training role could be difficult depending on the number of Canadian military leaders who would be needed.
"If you've got a force of 200 trainers ... that's like two battalions' worth of leaders," he said...
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 12:19 p.m.
3 Comments:
Re: "he's not telling the truth"
Unparliamentary, yes, but BANG ON.
Can't wait for some clarity, one way or another.
You know it all's just don't understand political necessity. Regardless of what you may think, our politicians run this country. It is fine and allowed for you to critise from afar but Harper JUST MAY have your interests at heart. He simply may not be able to articulate them now. Politics is the "Art of the possible" not the impossible.
I myself supported the incursion initially but I have come to the realisation that whether we win or not, things will devolve back to the way they were in that culture. I don't care about the secular humanist revelation that the opposition has had recently.
Hoarfrost: If our elected leaders are in a "we're sorting out what we want to do next phase", they should have the courage to say just that.
If we're leaving, we're leaving. If we might stay, say we might be staying.
Or would that sort of statement upset enough potential voters to upset the "political necessity" equation?
Post a Comment
<< Home