Very little complete in PRT Kandahar

Researcher87

Electoral Member
Sep 20, 2006
496
2
18
In Monsoon West (B.C)
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - It was billed as the star of Canada's mission in Afghanistan but the military's provincial reconstruction team has little to show off one year after setting up in Kandahar city.
A series of setbacks, starting with the bombing death of Canadian diplomat Glyn Berry and continuing on to the recent outbreak of heavy fighting, have robbed the team - known as the PRT - of precious muscle and expertise over the past year.
Lt.-Col. Simon Hetherington, in charge of the PRT, admits he has few concrete results to show right now but promises some soon.
"We have had a lull, we need to get moving, I recognize that," said Hetherington, a plain-speaking artillery officer.
"I'm a simple guy. 'Show me the schools you've built, show me the roads you've built, show me all that stuff.' I can't show you that now."
"If you come back in three months and you ask the same question, 'What have you done?' and I have the same answer ... I'm probably going to be on a plane home because I'll be fired."
Critics like former prime minister Paul Martin and NDP Leader Jack Layton say Canada's mission in Afghanistan has strayed, emphasizing combat over rebuilding.
Canada has pledged $100 million a year for Afghanistan, and millions have been spent across the country on hundreds of schools, water wells and a host of other projects.
But progress has been slow at the PRT, dedicated to Kandahar province where the Taliban insurgency has a tenacious foothold.
Hetherington has $2.4 million to spend and the Canadian International Development Agency has unspecified millions more, but money's not the problem.
Soldiers dedicated to the PRT turned to combat as the insurgency grew through the spring and summer. Aid groups putting dollars to work have stayed out of the restive south.
The PRT is dedicated to organizing Afghans to lead the way, a goal that could take years.
"Security remains a major impediment to rolling out a number of these programs we have been planning in the last year," said Helene Kadi, CIDA's director with the PRT.
"The challenge is also capacity on the ground. A lot of money is being pumped into the system but the capacity to deliver in the (Afghan) government itself and our implementing partners is very low."
Since the start of 2006, everyone from common shopkeepers to well-connected political brokers who are Canadian allies have complained about the crawling pace of reconstruction.
"The working pace since the Canadians came to Kandahar to replace the Americans is very slow," says Haji Qassam, a provincial councillor and backer of international efforts.
"The first task must be security, but as long as people are jobless, there will be insecurity."
The PRT has done good deeds. It purchased trucks and started building a new police station - a project launched early in the mission that has stalled.
The team has handed out Canadian donations of basic firefighting gear, medical equipment and school supplies - tasks that are not part of the team's mandate but have been the most visible so far.
Yellow garbage cans with Canadian flags dot the main drag in Kandahar city.
Lately, the PRT helped the United Nations hand out food and started financing a few thousand dollars worth of repair on canals and roads in the Panjwaii district, the scene of a major battle earlier this month.
The PRT was crippled on Jan. 15 when Berry, the senior Foreign Affairs official at the PRT, died in a suicide bombing.
The PRT mission was built on the concept of "3-D" - defence, diplomacy and development. Fearing for the safety of civilian employees, Ottawa kept CIDA, Foreign Affairs and other key workers away for months, depriving the PRT of two of its D pillars.
When the civilians returned, security in the province had gone downhill and many PRT soldiers were out fighting pitched battles against insurgents.
Thirty of the 37 deaths in the Canadian mission to Afghanistan have come since the move to Kandahar, including nine in September alone.
"A year ago it was dangerous here, but it wasn't what we are talking about now," Hetherington said.
Ottawa is sending a rifle company so the PRT can get out more. Engineers have arrived to advise and supervise.
From the beginning, the Canadian effort has concentrated on "capacity building," a phrase repeated like a mantra by Canadian officials and recently learned by soldiers like Hetherington.
Instead of rapidly throwing money into schools and roads like their American predecessors, Canada wants to build institutions, councils and committees to create and execute projects.
"If we dump $100 million in Kandahar and Kandahar becomes some Shangri-la, all this stuff happens and it becomes Canada-har, if we leave, what happens?" Hetherington said.
But building such capabilities takes time in a country where few systems exist.
"We're not focusing on the dollar amount, because it's not about money," said CIDA's Kadi.
"It's about respecting these processes, ensuring those processes are in place and working through them. This is how we are going to have an impact."
CTV news

So little results for construction
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,346
556
113
59
Alberta
That's because critics like Paul Martin have lied to themselves regarding the mission in the first place. It is first rate spin. The mission to Afghanistan was never a mission of reconstruuction, but a war that resulted from 911. The peacekeeping spin was invented by a previous Government that lacked the stomach or the honesty to tell it's people the truth.

Spin: We are in Afghanistan to keep the peace.
Truth: We are at war.

I would venture to say that all parties involved knew that going in. Trouble is, they lacked the confidents in the Canadian peoples intelligence. The NDP will cry foul, but they knew we were going to war.

Jack Layton will accept numerous flag draped coffins as long as the coffins are filled with men who died under a UN mission instead of a Nato Mission. He, like his counterpart Paul Martin are the quintessential politician. As long as the perception is that we are sacrificing for humanitarian reasons we do so with impunity.

Trouble is, they believe their lies or at least appear to believe. One could call it plausible deniability.

I have no doubt we will help the people of Afghanistan, but first we must win the war and that will mean sacrifice.

After all, we are indeed at war.

M
 

sanch

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2005
647
0
16
That's because critics like Paul Martin have lied to themselves regarding the mission in the first place. It is first rate spin. The mission to Afghanistan was never a mission of reconstruuction, but a war that resulted from 911. The peacekeeping spin was invented by a previous Government that lacked the stomach or the honesty to tell it's people the truth.

This is not true at all. Much of the peace keeping and reconstruction was directed at the resettlement of refugees, an effort that has gone surprisingly well. The Taliban as well as al Qaeda are resurfacing and engaging primarily because they have a safe haven in Pakistan where they are supported by the military. So statements from Harper that Pakistan is our friend are especially stupid.

The cause of the conflict has to be severed at the root. Right now NATO is simply skirmishing with leaves that bud here and there. The role Pakistan is playing in the region where it is receiving gigantic aid packages to fight terror and then quite openly supporting terrorism both in Afghanistan and India needs to be assessed.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
...Spin: We are in Afghanistan to keep the peace.
Truth: We are at war.

I would venture to say that all parties involved knew that going in. Trouble is, they lacked the confidents in the Canadian peoples intelligence. The NDP will cry foul, but they knew we were going to war.

Jack Layton will accept numerous flag draped coffins as long as the coffins are filled with men who died under a UN mission instead of a Nato Mission.

so you think its alright that the Canadian public has been sold a bill of goods?

As a point of reference, it is a UN sanctioned mission even if the goals of its underlying documents are unachievable and its intent abandoned.
 
Last edited:

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,346
556
113
59
Alberta
so you think its alright that the Canadian public has been sold a bill of goods?

As a point of reference, it is a UN sanctioned mission even if the goals of its underlying documents are unachievable and its intent abandoned.

On the contrary. I believe if the previous Government had been honest about the intent we would not be debating it now. Yes it was a UN sanctioned Mission, but the UN has no grip on the Peacekeeping nor is the mission in Afghan just that. In order to rebuild and help the people of Afghan we must first beat the enemy. Once we get our heads wrapped around that idea and stop trying to put the best spin on it possible we will be more likely to succeed.

As for reconstruction, education, humanitarian relief. This was used in conflicts past long before the UN or the notion of peacekeeping was thought of. So, yes in response to Sanch, yes these things existed, but while we were doing all therse wonderful things some of my comrades were calling in fire at Tora Bora, operating a snipers and doing things to fight the war. That is the dirty secret the likes of Martin and Layton would not have you know. The mission has not steered off in another direction. As a member of Nato it was our turn to step up and take the lead.

My Son has been over there twice, I am proud of his service and in debt to our serving soldiers.

At least now there is honesty about our work over there.

I hope I have explained my position.

M
 

sanch

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2005
647
0
16
I think the reconstruction effort is important to acknowledge. I always assumed there would be military activity as well.

My main point concerns Pakistan and its past and current role in supporting the Taliban and now al Qaeda. Either the US or NATO needs to go into the tribal lands.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
...The mission has not steered off in another direction. As a member of Nato it was our turn to step up and take the lead...
M

Your comments seem to place all blame at the feet of previous governments and all glory to the current. I contend that had it not been for the current government ensuring a stifled and poorly informed debate rubber-stamped an extension we'd only be facing 5 more months of this technocratic SNAFU and wouldn't have coughed up our bargaining chips.

I can't help thinking that since the goals of the UN mandate are to enable the Afghanis to handle their own security and make their own way in the world but Hellier and his crowd see nothing but defeating the Taliban by force of arms as a goal, that the various power agents in this charade are anything BUT on the same page.
 

Sassylassie

House Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,976
7
38
There is a Website called www.mediaright.ca, go to the left side scroll down to links and you will see Canadian Angles, there you will find ordinary soldiers doing good work for the Afghani people. Yes our lads/lasses are having loved ones make blankets, mittens hats etc. Slide down a little further and the next link is Afghanies helping Afghanies. There is not much point in building new schools whilst the Taliban is burning them. Now that the Taliban is on the run more reconstruction can be done. War isn't a organized Cival War inactment, it's fluid the mission evolves and changes for those who like to complain that it's not blah blah obviously have no conception on how fast things on the ground in a war zone can change. Our Troops are doing the best job they can, don't like Harpers policies, PM your MP.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Maybe you should send Hetherington a link so he too can stop dealing with reality.
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,346
556
113
59
Alberta
BitWhys Your comments seem to place all blame at the feet of previous governments and all glory to the current. I contend that had it not been for the current government ensuring a stifled and poorly informed debate rubber-stamped an extension we'd only be facing 5 more months of this technocratic SNAFU and wouldn't have coughed up our bargaining chips.

Check your facts BitWhys. Before Harper won the minority our troops were moving into leading the Nato mission under Paul Martin and franklly I support that move. Just becauase he's flip flopped now does not make it untrue. But if it makes you feel better to blame it all on Harper then fill your boots. Spin seems to be a trait used when one can't accept the shoprtcomings of their poltical party. As for our government and Nato I have issues with the way they are handling this. We nned to win so instead of worrying about PR and the media we should be launching unannounced offensives against the Taliban and or Al Quaeda without warning.

What you want in Afghanistan will not be achieved with wishful thinking or good intentions. As for CDS Hillier, he's the first straight talker they've had leading our Army in some time and while some may not give a Tin Sh_t about our Canadian troops on the ground I do and we need a strong leader over there. Rick Hillier is that leader.

Even Bill Clinton had to bomb targets in the Former Yugoslavia before we good get the peae process underway. Prior to that we tried the UN way and Genocide and ethnic cleansing ensued.

But heck if you really want to buy the Martin/Layton position of convenience you knock yourself out.

Sanch: I think the reconstruction effort is important to acknowledge. I always assumed there would be military activity as well.

My main point concerns Pakistan and its past and current role in supporting the Taliban and now al Qaeda. Either the US or NATO needs to go into the tribal lands.
Sanch: I could not agree with you more, but before we re=built Europe and Japan we had to beat the enemy at hand.

Gday Folks
M
 
Last edited:

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Check your facts BitWhys...

Here's the facts. double-check them for me.

The Liberals committed troops to the effort in Kandahar until February 2007. That's 5 months from now. Irrespective of the vote, Harper declared Canada's involvement would last one year more than that. That would be 17 months. Thanks to the "Yea" vote of 3 Liberal MPs, the mission was extended another 12 months beyond that.

That's the facts. How'd I do?

It would have taken the dissention of only 3 more Liberals in attendance to cut the commitment down to only 17 months but they were not to be dissuaded in the face of such claims on the part of the government as this...

Gordon O'Conner said:
We are following the same tactics. We are following NATO tactics. Go check what the French are doing in the north. Go check what the Germans are doing in the north. They are doing the same thing.
- May 17, 2006


Fact is, I find that rather hard to believe since neither France nor Germany have troops on the front lines.
 

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
That's because critics like Paul Martin have lied to themselves regarding the mission in the first place. It is first rate spin. The mission to Afghanistan was never a mission of reconstruuction, but a war that resulted from 911. The peacekeeping spin was invented by a previous Government that lacked the stomach or the honesty to tell it's people the truth.

Spin: We are in Afghanistan to keep the peace.
Truth: We are at war.

I would venture to say that all parties involved knew that going in. Trouble is, they lacked the confidents in the Canadian peoples intelligence. The NDP will cry foul, but they knew we were going to war.
M



You want to know about spin? How about we put your post in historical context. I say this because we seem to conveniently forget the past and rewrite the situation to fit our arguements.

This is from Fox News itself (the government’s mouthpiece) dated Thursday, May 01, 2003:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85688,00.html

Rumsfeld Declares Major Combat Over in Afghanistan

Thursday, May 01, 2003

KABUL, Afghanistan — In an announcement marking a major victory in America's ongoing war on terror, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld declared Thursday that "major combat activity" has ended in Afghanistan. Later in the day, from aboard an aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean, President Bush planned to announce that military combat is over in Iraq.

A Bush administration source told Fox News that Bush's "compact" address to the nation from aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln (search) will be "not too far short of a victory statement."

Rumsfeld, seeking to reassure allies jittery about reconstruction and humanitarian efforts, made his announcement in a joint news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai (search) in Kabul.

He opened the news conference with the good news: "We're at a point where we clearly have moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and stabilization and reconstruction activities."


This is the context that we felt to be a part of this operation. A point of as the US administration put it, “stability and stabilization and reconstruction activities” under the context that, “major combat activity has ended in Afghanistan."

Should we have believed them to be liars at the time with the Canadian Public regarding our involvement accordingly?

It wasn’t Paul Martin’s spin. It was that of the Government of the USA. And yes we were made to believe that we would be doing more with regards to reconstruction with limited combat.


Also at the compound, Lt. Gen. Dan McNeill, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, told reporters he hopes the declaration that major combat is over will encourage more international assistance with rebuilding Afghanistan. The international community needs to step up and help rebuild the country, which has been devastated by decades of war, he said.
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,346
556
113
59
Alberta
Elevennevel, I'm sorry, I thought we were having a discussion about Canada's Nato involvement in Afghanistan, not whether or not the USA declared victory. I will divert my post for just a second just to let you know that my views on Iraq and what the USA didin regard to Afghan right or wrong differes from many other arguments. My reference to Bill Clinton was not partisan, but to point out that we were getting nowhere under the UN mandate in the FY until the fighting stopped. I found Clinton's use of Nato bombing to be a very effective move. I do however, find it futile to discuss this topic when the usual rhetoric about the USA comes out simply because ones counterpoint has no substance.
  • Fact: Chretien put us there after facing pressure, not only from our Nato Allies, but from within the ranks of his own party and the opposition.
  • Fact: Martin signed off on our comittment prior to the election and General Hillier was very public at that time that there would be casualties.
  • Fact: It was passed by parliament that we extend the mission (just barely yes).
  • Fact: The Chretien government spun it as a peacekeeping mission when it was not.
BitWhys, you can swallow the Liberal spin, if you like, it really does not matter to me. Nor do I care whether or not you are in support or against the mission. That's you're perogative. I am simply pointing out the truth and how some folks have a very short memory regarding our previous Governments stance and objective in Afganistan. Perhaps it is selective memory?

Canadians were sold a bill of goods on the mission to Afghanistanby by the Liberal Goverment, but they were not told the truth.

I have no doubt that if the parties were reversed and the Liberals were now the minority we would still be getting the same old Peacekeeping jargon while our young men and women and their families made the ultimate sacrifice.

I believe there are some things worth fighting for and I supported our deployment to South East Asia completely, but I had no illusions about the scope of the mission or what our soldiers were being called to do.

Unlike others, I have not taken the stance where I am willing to deploy as long as you tell me what I want to hear. Many Canadians obviously do.

Now that the warm fuzziness about the mission is gone people are crying foul, but they don't dare blame the previous Government, because that would illustrate how foolish they were to listen in the first place.

Cheers
M
 
Last edited:

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
No my post was a reply to the discussion on what capacity Canadians were led to believe as to our ongoing involvement with Afghanistan. As I’ve stated on another thread under Chetien we did indeed declare that we would support the USA in a ‘War On Terrorism’ even earlier and we sent troops to the Middle East for that support. We did not as far as I know declare a war on Afghanistan, nor did we make any official declaration on a war against the Taliban.

Our initial ongoing involvement to Afghanistan however was going to be on what the US government was telling it’s allies. The references I highlighted were US statements which directed themselves to any international involvement with Afghanistan. The talk was mostly all reconstruction and security with limited combat.

The combat we are experiencing in Afghanistan is pretty much the Pashtun people. Whether they support the Taliban, are Taliban, or simply just Afghans wanting to get us off their land is debatable. In all cases this has less to do with terrorism and more to do with hostile Afghans against our presence, or the types of changes we want to impose on them.

Why would USA officials have us believe what they told all their allies by direct statements from their top officials? Why did they not say to us that we are now handing over combat operations to our allies but rather place great emphasis that this was going to be “...a point where we clearly have moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and stabilization and reconstruction activities."?

The Liberals were sold on Afghanistan by the USA on a premise not mirroring the situation we are now caught up in. And if the Liberals were still in power expousing the situation the way it’s being expoused now, I would still point out the same flaw in arguement.

As to the extension, I don’t just fault the Conservatives on that. Some members of the Liberal Party are to blame for that too. Honestly, I don’t feel any of the three main Parties represent me at this time and I honestly don't really know what we should do about this Afghanistan headache we've taken responibility over. I don't think these were the results we were going for and I hold great doubt we are going to achieve the results we want.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
...BitWhys, you can swallow the Liberal spin, if you like, it really does not matter to me...

You can call it whatever you like but it won't change the facts. Facts, I notice, you have avoided speaking to directly.

5 months under the Liberals
17 months under the Conservative
29 months after O'Conner lied through his teeth.
 
Last edited:

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,346
556
113
59
Alberta
5 months under the Liberals
17 months under the Conservative
29 months after O'Conner lied through his teeth.

Well, seeing that the Liberals lost the election I guess we'll never know if the mission would have been extended. I think the mission would have been extended even if Martin had won the last election. Of course they still would have called it a peacekeeping mission.

I guess this is where the debate always ends and perhaps we can agree to disagree. I will say that I enjoyed the debate. I apologize for my grammar, I've been nursing a bad back for the last week and the pain medication doesn't help my proof reading.

I will say this BitWhys. The former Yugoslavia saw a few battles with our armed forces and we lost some good young men over there. One of those feroscious battles was known as the Medak Pocket and still the serving Government under Jean Chretien called it peacekeeping. Strangely for the troops on the ground it had nothing to do with peacekeeping, it was all about survival.

I have nothing against peacekeeping mind you, I just feel there must be a peace to keep. We haven't achieved that in Afghanistan yet. I hope we will.

By the way, I want our men and women home as soon as we can. My Nephew and Son mean more to me than any Afghan, but I fear if we were to withdraw we will be returning to that region again. My greatest hope is that in the next US election there will be a change of Leadership that will implement a better approach.........

Enough said.
Cheers
M
 
Last edited:

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Hey RCS

Agreed with your good words - nice to see someone who has a handle on the picture and the courage to withstand the backlash!!! Curio
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
...By the way, I want our men and women home as soon as we can. My Nephew and Son mean more to me than any Afghan, but I fear if we were to withdraw we will be returning to that region again. My greatest hope is that in the next US election there will be a change of Leadership that will implement a better approach.........

Enough said.
Cheers
M

If we did withdraw our troops, not that it will happen, I have little doubt we would be returning, only under a more clearly scoped out mandate. All the mechanisms are there. I've been through a lot of the principle documents.

We have a lot of common ground its just that I'm more radical in my approach to the situation. I don't think continuing on a fool's errand is worth the moral victory. I also think there's some ISAF brass in serious need of a bitchslapping and that's not going to happen while they have our troops by the shorter hairs.