News   Jun 14, 2024
 2.4K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
 1.7K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
 832     0 

Afghanistan debate (Hillier, new troops)

^Europe and Afghanistan are two different ballgames.

I personally know an Afghani-"Canadian" that says the majority of Afghans he knows (both in Canada and in Afghanistan) want the Canadians/NATO out of the country, preferably dead.

We failed in our mission there.

If this article was not submitted two weeks ago, it could just as easily been written in 2003,20004...2009. We're not making the progress in Afghanistan needed for us to ever get out of there.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090127.wafghan27/BNStory/Afghanistan/home


The return of the Taliban
As the insurgents infiltrate the area west of Kandahar, Canadian troops concentrate on holding territory until U.S. forces arrive
Article Comments (154) JANE ARMSTRONG

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

January 27, 2009 at 3:48 AM EST

PASAB, AFGHANISTAN — The foot patrol to Charkuchi, an impoverished rural enclave in western Kandahar province, didn't follow the script. Coalition forces operations in southern Afghanistan rarely do.

The Canadian soldiers, led by Afghan police, were to walk through the mud-walled village, speak to residents, wave at children and inquire about insurgent activity. The goal: to let war-weary Afghan villagers know that Canadian Forces and Afghan police are dug in at a police station a few hundred metres away.

Ten minutes into the patrol, on the outskirts of town, a shot is fired at the troops. The soldiers hit the ground. Crouching in a ditch, Master Corporal Jason Thompson, acting commander of the unit, radios the police station to get a fix on where the shot came from.

It isn't a close call - the gunman is at least 450 metres away - but the patrol is aborted and the soldiers never get a chance to mingle with the Afghans.

Related Articles
From the archives

Taliban turning to more 'complex' attacks
Afghan woman given refuge in Canada
Obama gets started on new Afghanistan strategy
Homemade bombs now top threat in Kandahar, Canadians say
District leaders fight to survive in violent south
Afghan rebuilding efforts slowed by poor planning
Internet Links
Complete Coverage: Canada's mission in Afghanistan
Two years after the success of Operation Medusa, a Canadian-led routing of Taliban forces from this region of southern Afghanistan, the insurgents have returned, emboldened and newly confident. No longer organized into armies, they have traded the battlefield for guerrilla warfare. They plant roadside bombs, assassinate police officers and, most important, infiltrate villages, compound by family compound, insinuating themselves into the lives of the locals.

"They are everywhere," Corporal Gord Martin, a Canadian Forces mentor for the Afghan police, mused about the insurgents. "They mimic us. Whatever we do, they follow. We've seen them in trees, watching us. They're 300 metres outside these walls."

As Canadian troops wait for an influx of as many as 60,000 U.S. soldiers this year, senior military officials have quietly adjusted their goals. In western Kandahar province's Zhari district, the birthplace of the Taliban movement, the key word is "holding" territory. The now-modest twin goals are to keep the residents safe and prevent insurgents from using the region, as they do in depopulated northern districts, as a freeway into Kandahar city.

Canadian soldiers on their daily foot patrols try to persuade wary Afghans to spurn Taliban incursions into their villages and put their faith in Afghan and coalition forces, an effort that has been met with mixed results.

When a Canadian soldier has tea with a local elder, the Taliban show up five minutes after the Canadian has left, demanding to know what was discussed. When Canadians distribute posters urging locals to call the police with news of insurgent activity, the Taliban distribute their own literature reminding locals that co-operating with foreign forces is un-Islamic. Insurgents have killed civilians for co-operating with security forces; and while many Afghans would like to side with legitimate security forces, they are afraid, hedging their bets to see who comes out on top in southern Afghanistan.

On a recent foot patrol in another Zhari village, Captain Fern Bosse stopped to chat with a bearded elder. The man was familiar with Capt. Bosse's unit, which has been stationed in the region since August. The Afghan was upset about a series of compound searches by coalition and Afghan forces. Villagers have grown to resent these searches, which disrupt their lives but bring no guarantee of security.

Capt. Bosse said the searches must continue. "It's not because I don't trust [the villagers]" he said as he walked through the winding streets of the village. "But the Taliban is just west of here," he added, raising his hand to a row of fields in the direction of the setting sun. "There's nothing to stop them from coming in at night and putting their weapons in a compound."

To a large degree, the insurgency's tactics have worked. Reconstruction and development plans have been delayed or shelved as securing the region becomes the chief priority of stretched coalition forces.

Today, Canadian troops are simply holding on to hard-won territory, trying to secure crucial rural areas west of Kandahar city to prevent insurgents from getting a foothold in the provincial capital. They've already ceded some districts to the north. Ghorak, for example, has fallen to the Taliban and large swaths of territory in western Zhari are no-go zones for Canadian troops.

But the landscape is about to change, as is Canada's role in the Kandahar countryside, with the imminent arrival of U.S. troops. The Americans will be dispatched to the countryside, while Canadian forces will be deployed closer to Kandahar city. Eventually, the provincial capital will become the main focus of Canadian efforts in southern Afghanistan.

Senior military officials say they're confident the new strategy will work.

"What we think is, if we can concentrate security, governance and reconstruction development in certain areas, we will reach a kind of tipping point in which we will see an accelerated progress," said Major-General Mart de Kruif, commander of NATO forces in southern Afghanistan.

"People will feel safe, reconstruction and redevelopment will gain fruit. We can open schools, open markets. We will have access to markets. ... And once you reach that tipping point, then the whole dynamic changes."

With tens of thousands of new troops expected on the ground, a better-trained Afghan National Army and an improved Canadian-led reconstruction team in Kandahar city, Gen. de Kruif said coalition forces will be in a better position to secure southern Afghanistan.

For now, Canadians hope to hold the fort until more help arrives.

"We're aren't trying to drag [Afghans] into the modern world," an officer said.

"We're not trying to convince them that democracy and TV is the answer to their problems. What we're trying to do is build up government [institutions] to actually provide for them."
 
Oh my, these military strategy folks are real clowns.

Why don't they--if they insist on helping Afghanis--focus on one "city block" at a time, rebuilding and maintaining control of a tiny area (say the equivalent of King-Spadina-Queen-University) and only then, allow screened citizens to enter and move in/take over? Sort of like setting up mini-Canada's within Afghanistan.
 
Oh my, these military strategy folks are real clowns.

Why don't they--if they insist on helping Afghanis--focus on one "city block" at a time, rebuilding and maintaining control of a tiny area (say the equivalent of King-Spadina-Queen-University) and only then, allow screened citizens to enter and move in/take over? Sort of like setting up mini-Canada's within Afghanistan.

That was the Soviet strategy in Afghanistan. Retreat to urban centres and follow a scorched earth policy in the countryside. You want us to do that?
 
Concerning how many people would prefer to live under taliban rule, this would suggest people being able to choose between alternatives. In order to cary out such a survey the people first have to have a degree of freedom to choose (something the taliban was not known to grant); and second, knowledge of the possible alternatives.


they did have elections:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_elections#2005_parliamentary_election

the only problem is that i don't really know which candidates have a platform or ideologies which are similar to the taliban.

kEiThZ, would you know roughly which candidates are the whack jobs and want a return to taliban-like rule? did anyone like that run in the elections?
 
Keithz, you read me wrong. I mean why not create a "little Canada" within Afghanistan (meaning peaceful, zero tolerance on weapons, etc) even if it means the majority are middle class people?

In plain English: Take 1/10000 of the country, preferably in a desirable area, and create peace and plenty. Set a good example, and the example will mushroom.

It is wasteful to try to control the entire situation/country. Start small--like most countries/businesses/etc do.

So, toss your Soviet-era thinking in the toilet. (No scorched-earth policies advocated under my plan. Rather, small areas that are "normalized.")
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting that article Mot. You proved my point. We don't have enough boots on the ground to secure the area. That means that development and reconstruction are put on hold.

I would argue that we need to work fast and hard to secure the area before we loose the trust of the people. I trust you read the Asia Foundation survey which said security is the prime concern of the Afghan people, followed by the economy and employment. That means either putting more of our folks on the ground or training up more Afghans. CSTC-A has been tasked by the Obama administration to accelerate training for the Afghans. In the meantime, Obama is following CENTCOM's recommendationg and surging in southern and eastern Afghanistan.

Now you tell me what your plan is. Or are you going to be the new jade_lee on here parroting 'No more of the same' but not offering any other alternative that meets our goals (stabilizing Afghanistan so its not jihad central) and the goals of Afghanistan (stabilizing their homeland so they can live in peace)?
 
Keithz, you read me wrong. I mean why not create a "little Canada" within Afghanistan (meaning peaceful, zero tolerance on weapons, etc) even if it means the majority are middle class people?

In plain English: Take 1/10000 of the country, preferably in a desirable area, and create peace and plenty. Set a good example, and the example will mushroom.

It is wasteful to try to control the entire situation/country. Start small--like most countries/businesses/etc do.

So, toss your Soviet-era thinking in the toilet. (No scorched-earth policies advocated under my plan. Rather, small areas that are "normalized.")


Easier said than done. The Soviets focused on urban centres. They had security and redevelopment going on in urban areas and let the countryside fester. The insurgency took root in the countryside. Occassionally they'd send out a division (about 20 000 troops) or two and rampage through the countryside if the attacks on the urban centres got too much for them to take. In the long run it was not a sustainable policy.

What you are advocating is essentially the same thing. Let's establish a mini-Canada. In that area we will have absolute security and on going development. Except that this is not a recipe to get out of Afghanistan. We'd be there for another 5 centuries guarding this area until the rest of Afghanistan approached the same level of development. Best example of your game plan: US Green Zone in Baghdad.

Canada has approached this exactly like we have any other Chapter 7 peace enforcement operation. Those missions usually entail two components. The maintenance and enforcement of peace and security being one. Reconstruction and development being the other. The challenge we have in Kandahar is like I described above. We are trying to secure an area the size of Nova Scotia with a combat force less than 1/5 the size of the Toronto Police Service. We can't pick and choose districts. If you try and secure just one or two, insurgents will focus on the rest. That's why it requires more troops. In the meanwhile, because we don't have enough troops, we make our troops work overtime. Every uniformed and civilian person in Afghanistan works 18 hrs a day, 6.5 days a week for 9 months with only 2 two week vacations in there. It's not a pretty situation. The Chief of Land Staff and the Chief of Air Staff have complained about personnel burning out. That's probably why we will either leave or drastically scale back in 2011/2012.

That being said, contrary to the assertions that you read in the press, there are successes. The Afghan National Army that's being stood up is proving to be fairly competent. And these are soldiers who live in that country, fight 24/7/365. No vacations. No 9 month tour and out. Yet they are starting to perform on par with some NATO units. And ultimately they are the solution. An insurgency will never be won by outsiders. Only the Afghans will be able to defeat other Afghans. The ANA is training up quick enough that they have already started replacing western units on many duties. So the hope is, they'll be able to put us out of work in Kandahar in 2011. There's other successes too. They just stood up an air force. I might be going over in the fall to help train them. That should take the pressure off NATO air assets in the region.

Our biggest challenges are the Afghan National Police....who are notoriously corrupt locals. And the local governors who squander a lot of the aid money. And NGOs who bitch the presence of NATO, but restrict their development work to areas under NATO control only and refuse to help folks in the countryside....hence why we take IED hits delivering food and building roads. That's where the Obama administration is focusing on now. I'd say that in another 5-7 years you'll start seeing the rest of NATO leave or switch purely to reconstruction, some American presence for counter-terrorism and support to the ANA, and a largely independent Afghan military securing their own country while a mostly corrupt Afghan government begins to achieve a slow but steady pace of development.
 
A short answer for now (I'm tired.)

The Soviets/Russians have always been a basket case, so not surprising they failed miserably in Afghanistan.

Yes, Canad-ize one tiny urban section of the region, and to hell with the rest! And the troops will not be doing any "fighting," rather they'll be converting to Islam and marrying the locals. Peaceful thinking. So, it'll be like the Romans in England.... One square mile at a time, the region will become saner and less hostile. (Maybe immigration from Canada--think of all the unemployed folks--to the new city/block could be encouraged?)

Of course you'll disagree, because my plan puts you bad guys out of business.:D
 
Last edited:
Just to put things in perspective...in 2008 more people were killed as a result of drug wars in Mexico than were killed in all of Afghanistan. Keep that in mind next time you hear a gloom and doom report about Af'stan.
 
A short answer for now (I'm tired.)

The Soviets/Russians have always been a basket case, so not surprising they failed miserably in Afghanistan.

And that's why we should not follow their failed policies....

Yes, Canad-ize one tiny urban section of the region, and to hell with the rest!

Because Canada needs a resort destination in Afghanistan?

And the troops will not be doing any "fighting," rather they'll be converting to Islam and marrying the locals. Peaceful thinking. So, it'll be like the Romans in England.... One square mile at a time, the region will become saner and less hostile. (Maybe immigration from Canada--think of all the unemployed folks--to the new city/block could be encouraged?)

Wow. You might be satirical but that's just...wow. I can't believe you're suggesting that we colonize another country just like the Romans. Sure...cause all their conquests were peaceful.

And you obviously have not read my posts. How do you propose that we move one square mile at a time when we don't have the man power to secure the next square mile?

Of course you'll disagree, because my plan puts you bad guys out of business.:D

Buddy, if you have great ideas, I invite you to come to Ottawa or Brussels for a chat. Our government or NATO will pay you big bucks if you have a bullet proof plan. You obviously seem to know much more than all of us guys with years of experience in the military, the diplomatic corps or the development community. How about you give my next briefing to the defence staff?

I assure you that nobody wants to be there a minute longer than needed. You think we like leaving our families to get shot at by strangers in a countries that beyond third world? You think our troops like working 18 hr days in a place where the temperatures range from below zero to 30+ celsius in half day? You are sorely mistaken if you think we're doing this for the sheer hell of it. We understand that Afghanistan needs to be rehabilitated so that us and them can live in peace 20 years from now. And that's why we do it. One look at the rubble piles the Afghans live in will convince you quite quickly that this mission is more worthwhile than our previous efforts helping relatively better off European countries entertain separatist fantasies (Kosovo).
 
Now you tell me what your plan is. Or are you going to be the new jade_lee on here parroting 'No more of the same' but not offering any other alternative that meets our goals (stabilizing Afghanistan so its not jihad central) and the goals of Afghanistan (stabilizing their homeland so they can live in peace)?

I would rather say I don't know than just make it up, or be wrong consistently for 7 years pushing militarism as a solution. Be careful, your posts will be here for years for us to revert back upon. Just like the ones from 6 months ago. If your increase military force scheme does not work will you be prepared to admit you and the leadership have been wrong?

I am curious and wonder if you will tell me the truth. Did you support the invasion of Iraq back when it began? Because you are using the same rationale in your Afghanistan arguments that the brokers of that war used. Plus Iraq was firmly in the 20th century with a far better infrastructure that you say we need to build in Afghanistan.
 
Just to put things in perspective...in 2008 more people were killed as a result of drug wars in Mexico than were killed in all of Afghanistan. Keep that in mind next time you hear a gloom and doom report about Af'stan.

Yet the Afghan people are asking for security as a top concern because violence has increased.
 
Maybe there is some truth to the fact that we in North America are somewhat blindly ethno-centric in our belief that our 'way' is the best way and that every other place in the world should be like us. Of course I do believe that to be true but that is my bias. Maybe other places should be left to sort out their own affairs, whether good, bad, or tragic. How else can organic change truly happen? In the west our democratic march towards equality and basic freedoms etc has been a hard-won and bloody history of personal sacrifice and loss. This is what is required to earn these rights and maintain them, and which is why I'm also disgusted that we are at times willing to compromise these things in the name of a 'tolerance' that is often misguided...

That said, although i don't particulary 'care' about Afghanistan beyond the basic human response of emphathy that I feel when I hear about things going on there that I personally, from my bias, find horrific (acid in the face of women going to school etc.) any concern for Afghanistan's right to 'self determination' went out the window with 911 and their harbouring of AQ and the implicit support of terrorist attacks on the West that this represented. In other words I can understand a viewpoint that says a country has the right to do within its borders what makes sense there in its own context but once this is expressed beyond those borders then it is fair game, so to speak, as to what any reaction of the outside world will be. The Taliban opened that door fortunately/unfortunately and it will be the people of Afghanistan that will come to either benefit or suffer from it, and in truth probably both. As far as what determines our policy with regards to Afghanistan I think it should be decided largely by what the consequences will be to us, and not Afghanistan necessarily. If the consequences are better that we stay and encourage a stable democracy then that is what we should do.
 
Maybe there is some truth to the fact that we in North America are somewhat blindly ethno-centric in our belief that our 'way' is the best way and that every other place in the world should be like us. Of course I do believe that to be true but that is my bias. Maybe other places should be left to sort out their own affairs, whether good, bad, or tragic. How else can organic change truly happen? In the west our democratic march towards equality and basic freedoms etc has been a hard-won and bloody history of personal sacrifice and loss. This is what is required to earn these rights and maintain them, and which is why I'm also disgusted that we are at times willing to compromise these things in the name of a 'tolerance' that is often misguided...

That said, although i don't particulary 'care' about Afghanistan beyond the basic human response of emphathy that I feel when I hear about things going on there that I personally, from my bias, find horrific (acid in the face of women going to school etc.) any concern for Afghanistan's right to 'self determination' went out the window with 911 and their harbouring of AQ and the implicit support of terrorist attacks on the West that this represented. In other words I can understand a viewpoint that says a country has the right to do within its borders what makes sense there in its own context but once this is expressed beyond those borders then it is fair game, so to speak, as to what any reaction of the outside world will be. The Taliban opened that door fortunately/unfortunately and it will be the people of Afghanistan that will come to either benefit or suffer from it, and in truth probably both. As far as what determines our policy with regards to Afghanistan I think it should be decided largely by what the consequences will be to us, and not Afghanistan necessarily. If the consequences are better that we stay and encourage a stable democracy then that is what we should do.


I appreciate your thought out response on this. My point throughout this discussion has been despite our presence in Afghanistan for 7 years the acid attacks still happen, the taliban are still in control of a majority of the country. The progress made in urban centers is simply not enough for the lives lost on all sides and money pit this war has become. We've managed to prop up greedy and corrupt local officials and the people do not trust us. Traditional armies do not win guerrila wars and I cannot imagine how adding more troops doing the same thing is going to magically change things.

As a left winger of course I want us to end the needless suffering of anyone who lives under oppression. As a pragmatic person I know that is not possible. I am not seeing the use of the military as the main impetus to achieve peace in these situations, I am certainly not seeing it working in Afghanistan after 7 years.

The only way we are going to stop another 9/11 is through the security measures on our own shores. We will never be able to eradicate terrorism.

Some want me to make up a plan out of thin air because I point out the current plan is not working, I cannot do that because as you stated democracy is organic it grew from the need and want to have it (hard won), it was fought for by the people who yearned for it in their country. Not because others forced it onto them.
 

Back
Top