Recommendations For Canada In Afghanistan

[Aaron]

The federal government commisioned a panel in early 2007 to evaluate our options for Afghanistan come Feb 2009 (our earliest stated withdrawl date). The report is a PDF and some 90 pages long but I'll post a couple highlights.

The Report (PDF WARNING).

Canadian interests and values, and Canadian lives, are now invested in
Afghanistan. The sacrifices made there, by Canadians and their families, must be
respected. What we do there (or stop doing) affects the Afghan people. It can
affect Canadian security. It can affect Canada’s reputation in the world. It can
affect our influence in international affairs, particularly with respect to future
international responses to the dangers and deprivations of failed and fragile states.
Canada is a wealthy G8 country; our good fortune and standing impose on us
both authority and obligations in global affairs.

One of the stated reasons to continue the mission. (pg 36)

A premature military withdrawal from Afghanistan, whether full or partial, would
imperil Canadian interests and values. It would diminish the effectiveness of
Canadian aid in Afghanistan, by further constraining the ability of Canadian aid
workers to move among Afghans. It could encourage insurgents. It could weaken
the confidence of some Afghans living in Kandahar in their own future and in
their own government, increasing their susceptibility to the Taliban insurgency. It
would undermine Canada’s influence in the UN and in NATO capitals,
including Washington. It could curtail Canada’s capacity (and raise questions
abroad about our future willingness) to act, and persuade others to act, in
enforcing peace and restoring security where peace and security are threatened. In
sum, an immediate military withdrawal from Afghanistan would cause more harm
than good. Even an ill-prepared partial withdrawal would risk undercutting
international confidence in Canadian commitments and impose new burdens on
others obliged to take our place in Kandahar.

Another reason not to withdraw. (pg 37)

Canada should continue with its responsibility for security in Kandahar
beyond February 2009, in a manner fully consistent with the UN mandate on
Afghanistan, including its combat role, but with increasing emphasis on
training the Afghan National Security Forces expeditiously to take lead
responsibility for security in Kandahar and Afghanistan as a whole. As the
Afghan National Security Forces gain capability, Canada’s combat role should
be significantly reduced.

The most important part of the recommendation. We stay (pg 41).

There's alot of interesting stuff in the report. Regardless of what you think of the mission, based on this we won't be leaving anytime soon.

[Wanderer]

Those reasons are complete Bullshit.

The Insurgents are already emboldened, they do after all control most of the Country as Coalition forces are too thin to police the area.

The Afghan people already have no faith in the Government as it is consistently unable to protect them from Warlords, Taliban, and Drug Lords. They want us out so they can solve their own problems.

Canada's security is not affected by Afghanistan. The Afghan people could care less about Canada and throwing more lives away in order to make the "sacrifices of those who have die not in vain," what a crock of shit. They'll die in vain anyway as the war is lost. Get yourselves out of Afghanistan.

The only nation Canada should worry about is its own not others.

"Starts to Hyperventilate at the Jackassery in the report"

[aerius]

The only reason I can think of for being in Afghanistan is so that the US doesn't get pissed and fuck over our trade agreements. That ain't worth the lives of our soldiers.

[Phantasee]

Does anyone know about this "ultimatum" Canada delivered to NATO? About other NATO troops getting in on the action and not just sitting on their hands, or else we leave?

I've been hearing about it but I haven't seen much in the news about it.

[TheKwas]

Those reasons are complete Bullshit.

The Insurgents are already emboldened, they do after all control most of the Country as Coalition forces are too thin to police the area.

Bullshit they do. The only real area experiancing combat is Southern Afghanistan, and still most coalition and Afghan deaths are caused by roadside bombs rather than actual combat. That's the reason why Canada wants other NATO countries like Germany and France to pick up the slack in the South rather than sit around doing nothing of significance in the North parts of Afghanistan.

The Afghan people already have no faith in the Government as it is consistently unable to protect them from Warlords, Taliban, and Drug Lords. They want us out so they can solve their own problems.

Polls>>Bullshit you made up.

CONFIDENCE IN THE AFGHAN GOVERNMENT
Afghans voice confidence in their national government. Seven in ten (71%) are very or somewhat positive in their general opinion of the Karzi government (versus 20% who are negative), and six in ten (59%) believe the Karzi government represents their interests as an Afghan. On both questions views are more positive in Kandahar. Across ethnic groups, opinion of the Karzi government is strongest among Uzbek, Hazara and Pashtun (from which the Taliban recruit), and weakest among the Tajik. The minority who believe the Karzi government does not represent their interests mention such reasons as unemployment, corruption in government, insecurity and lack of reconstruction and lack of international assistance.

OVERALL DIRECTION OF THE COUNTRY.
Despite the terrible toll suffered by Afghans for decades, Afghans are surprisingly upbeat about the direction they see their country moving. A majority (51%) say their country is going in the right direction compared with 28 percent who say it is heading in the wrong direction, although opinion is more divided in Kandahar (48% right direction versus 43% wrong direction). When asked, Afghans say the country is heading in the right direction because they are feeling safer, see reconstruction, disarmament and schools opening for girls. Those who believe the country is heading in the wrong direction emphasize the lack of security and safety, or poor economic conditions.


Seven in ten (73%) believe that women in Afghanistan today are better off then five years ago (under the Taliban), a view that is equally widespread in Kandahar and among women across the country.



When considering their own situation, six in ten (60%) Afghans say they are personally better off today than they were in 2002 (same in Kandahar), but somewhat less apt to believe they are better off than they were one year ago (36%) (51% in Kandahar). On both questions, women are more positive about the trend than are men.

Should Foreign Troops Leave or Stay? How do Afghans view the timetable for foreign troop withdrawals from their country, which has been wracked by conflict for more than 30 years. There is no public consensus on this question, but given the positive influence most attribute to the international forces, the plurality (43%) of Afghans say that foreign troops should remain 밾owever long it takes to defeat the Taliban and restore order.? By comparison, one-quarter are looking for a relatively quick exit, either immediately (14%) or within the next year (11%). Another quarter take the middle view of wanting them to stay either two more (12%) or three to five more (15%) years.

In Kandahar, there is somewhat greater desire for a quicker exit (31% want the troops to stay as long as necessary versus 32% would like to see the troops gone within one year), but also a greater sense of uncertainty (with 13% unable to offer an opinion, compared with 5% nationwide).

[TheKwas]

Ghetto edit:
Source

[Lonestar]

Those reasons are complete Bullshit.

The Insurgents are already emboldened, they do after all control most of the Country as Coalition forces are too thin to police the area.

The answer, then, is to not fight them with Coalition troops but to pack the ANA and police with western advisers.

And, of course, almost all insurgents are localized in the Southern mountains anyway, so Coalition troops are not policing the entire country.

[Wanderer]

Bullshit they do. The only real area experiancing combat is Southern Afghanistan, and still most coalition and Afghan deaths are caused by roadside bombs rather than actual combat. That's the reason why Canada wants other NATO countries like Germany and France to pick up the slack in the South rather than sit around doing nothing of significance in the North parts of Afghanistan.

A report from two months ago

Lets see the Taliban have regained half the nation.

Polls>>Bullshit you made up.

Polls are rather easy to manipulate by how you ask questions and who you choose to ask.

The fact most Afghans won't talk to us is a good indication of how much they don't want us there especially as NATO forces have a bad habit of using bad intel upon which to launch air strikes which kill mostly innocence people.[/url]

[Wanderer]

The answer, then, is to not fight them with Coalition troops but to pack the ANA and police with western advisers.

Precisely except for western advisors. The west is not trusted by the average Afghan as too many missteps by them have completely discredited them.

We actually need Iran to step in. Iran does not want the Taliban back in power and would like to see Afghanistan develop into a viable ally and trading partner as well as to send the Afghan refugees in their country back home.

And, of course, almost all insurgents are localized in the Southern mountains anyway, so Coalition troops are not policing the entire country.

We also have the Warlords in the north and Karzai still has little influence past Kabul.

[Phantasee]

Where are you getting this idea that most Afghans won't talk to us? The people who didn't know/didn't answer are hardly the majority in any of those polls.

[Aaron]

Does anyone know about this "ultimatum" Canada delivered to NATO? About other NATO troops getting in on the action and not just sitting on their hands, or else we leave?

I've been hearing about it but I haven't seen much in the news about it.

I think this report is the ultimatum. Look at this from pg 39:

Second, the most damaging and obvious deficiency in the ISAF mission in
Afghanistan is the insufficiency of military forces deployed against the insurgents.
Therefore, Canada’s military mission in Kandahar should be conditionally
extended beyond February 2009—the extension to be expressly contingent on the
deployment of additional troops by one or more ISAF countries to Kandahar
province. This added deployment should consist of a battle group (about 1,000
soldiers) to reinforce ISAF’s “clear, hold and develop” strategy in Kandahar and to
accelerate training of Afghan army and police units. These additional troops would
serve to expand ISAF’s security coverage in Kandahar, and reinforce ISAF’s
capacity to prevent incursions from Pakistan and facilitate Afghan training. To
repeat: A successful counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan requires more
ISAF forces. Despite recent indicators of imminent reinforcements, the entire ISAF
mission is threatened by the current inadequacy of deployed military resources. As
well, to improve the safety and operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces in
Kandahar, the Government should secure for them, no later than February 2009,
new medium-lift helicopters and high-performance unmanned aerial vehicles.
Canadian soldiers currently must rely too much on allied forces for both of these
necessary assets. If no undertakings on the battle group are received from ISAF
partner countries by February 2009, or if the necessary equipment is not procured,
the Government should give appropriate notice to the Afghan and allied
governments of its intention to transfer responsibility for security in Kandahar.

[TheKwas]

Bullshit they do. The only real area experiancing combat is Southern Afghanistan, and still most coalition and Afghan deaths are caused by roadside bombs rather than actual combat. That's the reason why Canada wants other NATO countries like Germany and France to pick up the slack in the South rather than sit around doing nothing of significance in the North parts of Afghanistan.

A report from two months ago

Lets see the Taliban have regained half the nation.

Exactly how is this group (which is a group specialized in narcotics, not military operations) defining 'control', or 'Taliban'? Because the Taliban certainly don't control anything near 50% of the country from a military perspective. They come down from the mountains mostly to plant bombs near main roads.

The only way I can see this group making this claim seriously is if they count 'shady warlords' as part of the 'Taliban', but then again such a definition would be utterly retarded, since most of Karzi's government is made up of former and current 'warlords' which are simply aren't comparble to the Taliban at all. Afghanistan is going to be a country dominated by warlords for a long time.

Polls are rather easy to manipulate by how you ask questions and who you choose to ask.

Shoddy reports from drug think-tanks are even easier to fuck up.

The fact most Afghans won't talk to us is a good indication of how much they don't want us there

Again, more puffed smoke without a hint of a source.

[Phantasee]

Does anyone know about this "ultimatum" Canada delivered to NATO? About other NATO troops getting in on the action and not just sitting on their hands, or else we leave?

I've been hearing about it but I haven't seen much in the news about it.

I think this report is the ultimatum. Look at this from pg 39:

snip

I think that's a good idea. Those 'allies' of ours aren't doing much to help. I think the interesting part is the requirement of helicopters. If the government doesn't get them, we have to withdraw? Look for the Opposition to block any attempts at procuring those choppers.

[Aaron]

I think that's a good idea. Those 'allies' of ours aren't doing much to help. I think the interesting part is the requirement of helicopters. If the government doesn't get them, we have to withdraw? Look for the Opposition to block any attempts at procuring those choppers.

They've already been approved, part of the 2006 budget. But they won't be delivered until at least 2010, because the RCAF wouldn't accept rebuilds.

What I figure will happen is that the opposition parties will use the Afghan issue to force an election, then turn around and extend it after winning. It was the Liberals that put us in and got us into Kandahar after all and both issues were approved by the majority of Parliament. I don't actually think this will happen until Dion is fired out of the leadership of the Liberals though. Seeing as he and the rest of the parties have pissed away several chances to force an election.

[Beowulf]

Bullshit they do. The only real area experiancing combat is Southern Afghanistan, and still most coalition and Afghan deaths are caused by roadside bombs rather than actual combat. That's the reason why Canada wants other NATO countries like Germany and France to pick up the slack in the South rather than sit around doing nothing of significance in the North parts of Afghanistan.

A report from two months ago

Lets see the Taliban have regained half the nation.

Any proof as to the veracity of this report?