Time to shift away from Afghan combat role: NATO

[Praxius]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080114/nato_role_080114/20080114?hub=World

NATO agrees its time for the role of foreign troops in Afghanistan to shift away from one of combat to one of support, says a spokesperson for the international organization.


James Appathurai discussed the NATO position after Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and deputy leader Michael Ignatieff visited the war-torn nation and called for Canada to stay on beyond February 2009 when the mission is scheduled to end, but in a non-combat role.

"I think actually we all agree on the end state -- NATO and I think probably the political parties here too -- and that's transition," Appathurai, a Canadian, told CTV's Canada AM on Monday.

"We want to move to a phase where the Afghans are in the lead and we provide support, training, close air support, emergency support but let them do the frontline fighting. It's a question of when."


Appathurai, who recently returned from a visit to the Panjwaii region of Afghanistan, said that transition -- which many see as no more than a distant and unlikely possibility -- may actually not be that far off.


"We have two Afghan battalions now, with Canadian troops, and taking an increasingly leading role. But the key is, from my perspective but also from NATO's perspective, we haven't reached a tipping point. We're not at the phase where we can take that step."


Canada has taken a lead role in the volatile south of Afghanistan, facing the Taliban head on and taking casualties, with 76 soldiers and one diplomat now killed since 2002 -- and several more injured over the weekend.


That has many Canadians questioning why the frontline fighting isn't being shared more evenly among the NATO countries serving in Afghanistan.


But Appathurai said other countries are helping shoulder the burden.


"I think the first thing to say is we're not alone. There are eleven countries directly involved in the combat all the time. Two Dutch were just killed yesterday," he pointed out.


"And eight countries in the last three or four months have stepped up their contribution to the combat role. The Poles just announced a couple of days ago, 400 new troops, eight new helicopters. The Americans are considering 3,000 more soldiers for the south."


The problem, he said, is that Canadian journalists travel to Kandahar where Canadians are taking a leading role, and most of the stories that emerge cover the risks Canadian soldiers are taking in that region.


A Liberal news release issued Saturday said Dion and Ignatieff met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and told him that while the party believes Canada's combat mission should end in 2009, the party supports diplomatic and development efforts.


"We are convinced after the day we've had that we will have plenty of things to do that will involve, yes, to take risks, but anywhere we will go whether Darfur or Haiti, there are always risks," Dion told reporters in Kabul.


"We are not afraid of the risks. But we want to sure that we have a balanced mission after 2009 that will be optimally helpful for the people of Afghanistan."


Karzai's reaction to the statement isn't known yet, but reports indicate he thanked Canada for its service in his country to date.


Appathurai said the proposal put forward by Ignatieff and Dion is not unrealistic. In fact, there are already indications that it is on the way, he said.


"It's already happening. In Panjwaii it's happening. We saw a major operation in a town people might have seen in Helmand where the Taliban ... was actually in charge until a couple of months ago. The Afghans led the mission, we came in behind, we kicked them out."


The ultimate goal, he said, is for the Afghan National Army to be handling security in the country and for other nations to support those efforts.


He also said it is critical, both to NATO and the United Nations that the mission in Afghanistan results in a successful outcome. High level UN officials have said that if NATO pulls out, they will also leave because they won't have the necessary security.


"I think to the whole international community, Afghanistan is critical. If we fail in Afghanistan, it means that the UN fails, this is a UN mission, that NATO is doing basically on contract," Appathurai said.


Under that scenario, Afghanistan could easily return to a Taliban-run country, he warned.

"Afghanistan will again be the grand central station of terrorism. There will be terrorists from all over the world, like there were in 2001, training and leaving again to go back to their countries to be more extreme. We will all suffer."

Interesting points in article bolded.

 

[dancing-loon]

It sounds more like a pipe dream to me! My question still is, WHY are we there? For WHOM are we laying down our lives? WHAT is in it for us?

Just today four Taleban suicide bombers tried to blow up the big luxury hotel SERENA in Kabul. Only one bomber was successful.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7187592.stm

Train the Afghans to fight the Taleban is the new plan? NATO has done that for years. It doesn't work, because they don't hate the Taleban enough or not at all.

Nobody, of course, mentions why we went there in the first place! That has all been forgotten. And we didn't get there in 2005... we have been there since 2002!!! As a result of 9/11. To aid the Americans in their hunt for Osama!

At an earlier time Mr. Stephan Dion told Harper, if he didn't bring the troops home, he would bring down the government! Now he wants to leave them there and train the willing Afghans!
Good luck, Mr. Dion!

 

[Praxius]

It sounds more like a pipe dream to me! My question still is, WHY are we there? For WHOM are we laying down our lives? WHAT is in it for us?

Ask the Canadian soldiers who are over there and what drives them to continue to fight there. Whom? The afghan civilians who have been in the middle of continual civil wars and invasions over the last number of decades.

Just today four Taleban suicide bombers tried to blow up the big luxury hotel SERENA in Kabul. Only one bomber was successful.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7187592.stm

Train the Afghans to fight the Taleban is the new plan? NATO has done that for years. It doesn't work, because they don't hate the Taleban enough or not at all.

They've been doing it for years, because training and organizing a brand new army for a brand new government takes time.... and you also have to get the troop numbers up decently so that they won't get wiped out if we just take off.

And they don't hate the Taliban enough? Well apparently they do, or they wouldn't be joining up with the army and leading the combat missions as they have been recently. The Taliban is not Afghanistan, they were the organization which held Afghanistan under their thumb for so long.

Are we any better? Who knows except those living in Afghanistan.

Nobody, of course, mentions why we went there in the first place! That has all been forgotten. And we didn't get there in 2005... we have been there since 2002!!! As a result of 9/11. To aid the Americans in their hunt for Osama!

I haven't forgotten, and I usually point it out. Regardless.... I knew, like always in the past, that Canada would be going over to clean up the US's mess of things. But bitching about the past isn't going to help matters much now is it? We're there now.

If I can find the study I'll post it, but there was a national poll last year by Afghans on their images and opinions of how things are going in their country.

From memory:

The majority of Afghans view Canadians as doing the majority of reconstruction (even though we're doing more fighting)

The majority of Afghans view the US as doing the majority of military combat (Possibly due to the level of air strikes over the last couple of years which have killed civilians)

The Majority of Afghans see their quality of life improving along with the development of schools and hospitals.

Many are still PO'd over the situation though.

At an earlier time Mr. Stephan Dion told Harper, if he didn't bring the troops home, he would bring down the government! Now he wants to leave them there and train the willing Afghans!
Good luck, Mr. Dion!

That was the original plan to begin with if you read clearly. He wanted them out of a combat role. Just pulling our troops out all together would be a futile attempt (As Layton wanted), as it would counter all the effort, loss of lives, and the money put into structures and development.

Most troops want to get out of there and head home, but not if it means destroying the efforts they put in already.

In perfect honesty, from Day 1 I didn't want us to join the US in Afghanistan, let alone in Iraq (We can at least thank PM Jean for that decision not to head over to Iraq). But poop happens, we're there now, and I don't honestly feel we should just cut and run.

Sure that's the option in Iraq for the US, but this isn't the same situation. It's not the people of Afghanistan blowing us up and continually chanting for us to leave their country like what is going on in Iraq... it's the Taliban. If the Afghans were blowing us up and destroying what we have been working on, then sure.... I'd be all for us hauling ass out of there. But this isn't the case, therefore it's not as black and white as most would like it to be.

 

[#juan]

Canada, like a lot of countries, was willing to join the Americans in the "war on terror" after 9/11. Bush has since expanded that war to Iraq and the so-called war on terror has been forgotten. Right now there is too much evidence that the war in Afghanistan is more related to Unocal's pipeline than any war on terror.

 

[dancing-loon]

Thanks, dear Juan, that you mentioned dem piiipes!!

I just found this article on my news ticker: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/293722

"I don't really believe in lending legitimacy to a process that I don't believe is fundamentally democratic or legitimate," Layton told a news conference yesterday.
In October, Prime Minister Stephen Harper tapped former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley to lead a panel looking at options for the future of Canada's mission, once the current military commitment expires in February 2009.
. . . .
Layton said panel members harbour a "strongly pro-American point of view."

I for once agree with Layton.
Harper seems to enjoy rubbing shoulders with his big brother! Naturally he will make sure the "right" people get on this panel!

 

[darkbeaver]

Gunning for more trouble
Move to more tanks, fewer foot soldiers could mean Canada’s giving up
By Paul Weinberg
As a federal election looms, Afghanistan observers are awaiting the late-January report of John Manley and his cherry-picked panel on Canada’s role beyond February 2009, when the current mandate expires.
In the meantime, there’s widespread unease among analysts on both sides of the border about the way operational decisions are deep-sixing political goals and and about the possibilities of a widened conflict.
The Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies has released its 2008 report calling for a strategic overhaul of the NATO mission, warning that the war is heading in the “wrong direction.”
At the University of Western Ontario, Peter Langille, a peace studies professor and defence analyst at the University of Western Ontario is concerned that firepower and armoured vehicles are trumping efforts to build connections with locals. It’s “common knowledge’’ in the ranks, he says, that the Canadian Forces have downgraded operations by infantry foot soldiers in favour of artillery and armoured vehicles.
“We don’t have as many boots on the ground as the government would like us to think,” he says.
The Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies estimates that of the 2,500 Canadian soldiers in Af

http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=161290

 

[Praxius]

I always figured the NDP were more in tuned with what the country wants compared to the other two more popular parties, but Layton's direct promise of pulling our troops out regardless seems unwise and reckless.

While I do want us out of there, we just can't rip ourselves out like a scab.

 

[dancing-loon]

I always figured the NDP were more in tuned with what the country wants compared to the other two more popular parties, but Layton's direct promise of pulling our troops out regardless seems unwise and reckless.

While I do want us out of there, we just can't rip ourselves out like a scab.

No, perhaps we can't, but we could set a firm timetable, so everybody over there would know... the Canadians are leaving April 1st, 2009!!! :lol:
Here is a link that provides a bit of an understanding what sort of big entanglement we would have to free ourselves from. The data is a little elderly... from 2005, and the numbers are no longer accurate.
http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm

Praxius, I was in the middle of answering your previous post, but got called away and now everything I wrote has disappeared, actually the whole thread vanished. How that happens is beyond my comprehension! :angryfire: I'll come back later and try again.

 

[#juan]

No, perhaps we can't, but we could set a firm timetable, so everybody over there would know... the Canadians are leaving April 1st, 2009!!! :lol:
Here is a link that provides a bit of an understanding what sort of big entanglement we would have to free ourselves from. The article is a little elderly... from 2005, and the numbers are no longer accurate.

Praxius, I was in the middle of answering your previous post, but got called away and now everything I wrote has disappeared, actually the whole thread vanished. How that happens is beyond my comprehension! :angryfire: I'll come back later and try again.

I had a similar problem but I think it was probably related to my attempted multi-tasking. We'll get there eventually.......;-)

 

[darkbeaver]

edited

 

[darkbeaver]

I always figured the NDP were more in tuned with what the country wants compared to the other two more popular parties, but Layton's direct promise of pulling our troops out regardless seems unwise and reckless.

While I do want us out of there, we just can't rip ourselves out like a scab.

Our continued presence as mercenary army in vassal to imperialism and capital will prolong the agony of Afghans and ensure thier conyinued misery. We are there to help ourselves, if we don't leace we will be fighting to secure the formation of Balochistan presently a region that borders Pakistan Iran and Afghanistan, this will destabalize the entire region further and result in further millions of dead. Already there are reports of US special forces in and on the way for deployment in the region to train the hired mercenarys commonly called terrorists who in fact at command levels are dorectly employed by the CIA and ISI in that mix of hired murderers we find AL-Queda the ISI/CIA construct. If we don't rip ourselves out like the scab we most certainly are we will become further embroiled in murder to preserve western capital further ensureing our own demise on this continent (NA) at the hands of us part of that same banking machine.

 

[Praxius]

Praxius, I was in the middle of answering your previous post, but got called away and now everything I wrote has disappeared, actually the whole thread vanished. How that happens is beyond my comprehension! :angryfire: I'll come back later and try again.

I noticed that in a number of my posts, where things would go blank or give me an error and then I'd loose everything... not fun.

I mean, if we pull out of our combat role in 2009, sure, I got no beef from that. Many troops of ours have been commenting on how we should be focusing more on reconstruction/redevelopment.... but as they also said, and in combination to the above withdraw of combat missions, I still feel we should at least stay for reconstruction, for at least a year following.

But I also feel the switch shouldn't be immediate. We should continue on what we have been doing in the last year by letting the Afghan army set the fights and we back them up. Then by 2009, we'll know what will occur if we discontiue out combat role.

I'd personally like to see us out of Afghanistan as soon as possible, but within logical reason, because I know soon enough, the US will invade us for all our goodies too.... which would explain why Harper has been pumping up our military recently. Why go halfway around the world for oil and resources in Afghanistan and Iraq, when you can start blaming Canada for all the border jumpers and insecurity in the US, and then go in and take our oil sands, uranium, fresh water, and territory?

That was the only reason why we joined in Afghanistan to begin with.... the lesser of two evil missions, and if we didn't help... well.... "You're either with us or with the terrorists" ~ And that was also at the same time the US was blaming Canada for letting in the terrorists who attacked the WTC's (Even though they were recorded to have come directly through US sea ports and airports) Once we joined in the fight, we were no longer a target, so much.

It's only a matter of time before Bush starts to think we're in ca-hoots with Russia, N.Korea and Iran.... which we technically are, just not in the way they claim we are.

But that's a story for another time.

 

[darkbeaver]

Logicly and by historical documentation of Imperial decline we will eventually be consumed by the Americans who will logically have fewer and fewer sources of resources absolutely necessary for them to conduct war which they will continue right up till they can't. We will be thier last victims, that is why in part the push to sign SPP and NAU and complete the corporate sponsered capitulation so it costs our wealthy nothing lost in defence of this country that has in fact made them rich. We have got to separate Canadians interests and American interests which are definately not the same.

 

[Praxius]

I agree with you there.

 

[darkbeaver]

Excellent, a classic pincer attack then, there are two of us that can both read, that means they are heavily outnumbered in the reading department this gives us an advantage, we should vote to see
which of us gets to carry the flag and Which of us sits bacjk at headquarters and directs the attack and mans the communicators what. I vote for me as general.:lol:

 

[Praxius]

I'm more into forming a non-uniformed malitia in collaberation with the Canadian Forces and help defend my area of friends, family and community... the Insurgency thing seems to work pretty well against the US

Then again, heading down and burning their stuff down again sounds like fun. Maybe then they'll have a chance to get rid of that Pentagram and Mason designs in their streets.

 

[Zzarchov]

Our continued presence as mercenary army in vassal to imperialism and capital will prolong the agony of Afghans and ensure thier conyinued misery. We are there to help ourselves, .

Which agony? The ones they suffered the last 30 years?

You have a very narrow view of the world, wearing blinders. America isn't the be all end all of world politics, alot of people have views in the world that don't really involve America.

Afghanistan was embroiled in just as much (in fact more) combat before we arrived, and one of the two main governing and warring bodies asked us in don't forget.

Its true neither one had legitimacy, but far more Afghans want us there than want us out of there.

 

[dancing-loon]

Which agony? The ones they suffered the last 30 years?

You have a very narrow view of the world, wearing blinders. America isn't the be all end all of world politics, alot of people have views in the world that don't really involve America.

Afghanistan was embroiled in just as much (in fact more) combat before we arrived, and one of the two main governing and warring bodies asked us in don't forget.

Its true neither one had legitimacy, but far more Afghans want us there than want us out of there.

That statement doesn't seem to be quite true according to this article in The Star:
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/268890

<<Finally, the survey provides a rather humbling insight into how Afghans view Canada's military role. The short answer is that they don't. Even in Kandahar, just 2 per cent of those polled knew that Canada was fighting the Taliban. Germany got a bigger mention and it has no troops there.
When Afghans were asked specifically about Canada, most were delightfully complimentary. But first they had to be reminded we were there. One hopes they weren't just being polite.>>

I hope this doesn't disillusion you too much, Zzarchov! The survey also shows that the Afghans don't view the Taliban as the monsters we Westerners make them out to be. They would even like them to participate in their government.

 

[dancing-loon]

I noticed that in a number of my posts, where things would go blank or give me an error and then I'd loose everything... not fun.

My real problem is that I'm not a computer whizz!:-(;-) The same thing happened again a while ago, luckily I hadn't written much yet, so I simply started over. it could be that forums do that, when you are in the middle of typing an answer and then someone is at the door and you just leave for awhile, the computer goes into hybernation mode. When I then come back and try to find my way to where I was, it has disappeared! It seems to live longer if I quickly, before leaving, put it into preview. But... it could all be my imagination!!:roll:

I mean, if we pull out of our combat role in 2009, sure, I got no beef from that. Many troops of ours have been commenting on how we should be focusing more on reconstruction/redevelopment.... but as they also said, and in combination to the above withdraw of combat missions, I still feel we should at least stay for reconstruction, for at least a year following.

Reconstruction and building... isn't that just what the fundamental islamic Taliban don't like? They always aim to destroy the western cultural influence. They reject us as morally corrupt!!

I'd personally like to see us out of Afghanistan as soon as possible, but within logical reason, because I know soon enough, the US will invade us for all our goodies too.... which would explain why Harper has been pumping up our military recently. Why go halfway around the world for oil and resources in Afghanistan and Iraq, when you can start blaming Canada for all the border jumpers and insecurity in the US, and then go in and take our oil sands, uranium, fresh water, and territory?

Never thought of that yet! Well, why don't we just become their 51st State? Get it over with! Party time:idea::lol:

That was the only reason why we joined in Afghanistan to begin with.... the lesser of two evil missions, and if we didn't help... well.... "You're either with us or with the terrorists" ~ And that was also at the same time the US was blaming Canada for letting in the terrorists who attacked the WTC's (Even though they were recorded to have come directly through US sea ports and airports) Once we joined in the fight, we were no longer a target, so much.

WRONG! That's when they really bombed us! Remember that so called "friendly fire" incident, where we lost 4 soldiers? They hated our guts at the time because of our liberal government and making fun of Bush.
That is water under the bridge, now that we have Harper as Bush's Husky!8O

It's only a matter of time before Bush starts to think we're in ca-hoots with Russia, N.Korea and Iran.... which we technically are, just not in the way they claim we are.

You mean in the arctic? Under the ice??

 

[MikeyDB]

The rationale for Canada's involvement in Afghanistan was our committment to agreements framed by NATO. The only difficulty with that is that the United States wasn't attacked by Afghanistan. It was attacked by people from Saudi Arabia, funded by billions of dollars paid to the Bin Laden family...(Saudis) and was a criminal act not an act of war by any "nation."

While the Saudis own a significant degree of responsibility for maintaining an oppressive government and the siphoning off of millions that were used by a family member to fund the Taliban...and Pakistan has proven to be the pool from which the Taliban draw their numbers....and yet the United Corporate Conglomerate ...while declaring that nations that harbor terrorists would be regarded as equally responsible for the events of 9/11, that hasn't been the case.

It's the way of the world that terrorist states stick together and of course the relationship between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and the United States fits that characterization exactly. The great wail from the U.S. regarding the spread of the "Red Menace" was in fact that the Soviet state having found support in Cuba and various other locations around the world represented a threat to everyone. And yet with the U.S. erecting military bases all over the world and being buddy-buddy with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is somehow different....