Other countries can help complete Afghan mission after 2009

[sanctus]

By Martin Ouellet
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - Canadian troops are not the only foreign military that can complete the rebuilding effort in Afghanistan beyond 2009, a top Canadian commander said on Sunday.
"Whether we accomplish it ourselves, or it's accomplished by others, it doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things," Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier, commander of the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, told a news conference in Kandahar.
Gauthier said the international community will need to be present in Afghanistan for several more years for the country to become self-sufficient.
The Canadian mission in Afghanistan is slated to end in February 2009.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he'll only extend that mandate with the consensus of Parliament, which seems unlikely. The mounting death toll - 66 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have died in Afghanistan since 2002 - has renewed the political debate back home over the mission's future, with the opposition parties pushing the government to come up with an exit strategy.
Gauthier said the situation has improved in the war-torn country, but it will require years of continued contributions from the international community.
"I don't think anybody believes the job is going to be done by February, 2009, from an international community perspective," Gauthier said.
"No one has any illusion that Afghanistan will be self-sustaining and self-sufficient by February, 2009."
Gauthier's observations were shared Sunday by the Canadian military's top general, Rick Hillier, who said he wasn't so sure troops would be able to hand over much of the frontline fighting to the Afghan National Army by February, 2009.
Gauthier said he does not see any major changes in the Canadian mission as a new rotation of troops begins a six-month mission.
A fresh batch of soldiers from Quebec's Royal 22nd Regiment - the Van Doos - are in the midst of arriving in Kandahar, replacing 2,500 battle-hardened soldiers from bases in Atlantic Canada.
Canadian troops will gradually spend less time in combat operations and more time training Afghan troops, Gauthier said.
He said Canadians should not expect that combat operations are nearly at an end for our military.
"We're going to have to continue the fight for the foreseeable future," he said.
The expansion of the Afghan army is only one piece of Afghanistan's security puzzle. The even greater challenge is creating a professional and effective national police force from the ragtag and often corrupt units that have existed.
"I'm told that the Afghan National Police is three or four years behind the army," Gauthier said. "It's a problem, a tremendous challenge."
Afghan police guard the country's porous border and patrol local communities across the country.

 

[MikeyDB]

Terrific idea!

As American presidents have been heard to proclaim..."Israel is America...America is Israel"....

So how many Israeli troops are in Iraq?

How many Israeli troops are supporting NATO in Afghanistan?

Americans will send billions to Israel their great ally....but when it comes to a fight....terrorism in Iraq or protecting the poppy fields in Afghanistan....where are America's great allies?

It's not as though America hasn't armed them and funded their form of terrorism for years....you'd think the least they could do is join the war that's been called on their behalf....!

 

[BitWhys]

Its the new PMO soft sell as per recent report recommendations.. You'll find most of these renegade CO types speak from the assumption 2009 is a choice between the Kandahar combat zone and getting out of Afghanistan altogether.

 

[Karlin]

It is a bit unclear about exactly what the goals are there.

Getting the army and police on track, and then to not let them be corrupted by poppy money etc, is allways going to be "an on-going task".

Rebuilding electric and water supplies, plus roads and other infrastructure, would help get Afghanistan moving towards normalcy.

What is normal to Afghans? Growing poppies? I like it. Let them be.

The only real problem in Afghanistan is that the Taliban, or other religious radicals, or local War Lords, will take over. Someone will move in to exploit the poppy crop profits.

Probably the best we can hope for - for Afghans - is that there will be some areas of local control over political matters, including infrastructure, and NOT by War Lords, unless thats what the locals want.

It isn't helping to have big military intervention. Like in Iraq, that just brings in more Taliban or Al Queda, like a moth to light. PEACEKEEPING would help - at the local level, with only the idea that we will not let some group take control, that only locals will decide how to run their areas.

PEACEKEEPING can be shared by many nations, but Canada will have to change military styles again when Harper the Warmonger is out of office [by 2009]


-----------
PS - as for the Jewish conspiracy dude post #2 - you really think the Israelis should send troops to Afghanistan? You do realise they have their hands full in Israel, right?

Not that I agree with the Jewish military goals or methods, and it is not that I support the right of Israel to take land from Arabs, but they are under constant attack and do not have spare army troops. Sure, you are right that America does tend to favour the military state of Israel [because it means permament war, and they make a lot of money off that for weapons makers who support republican politicans] , but there is little connection to Afghanistan there.

You just took this opportunity to tell us that you are aware of the Jewish conspiracy, and thats ok my friend.

---------

 

[JoeSchmoe]

Other countries could help with the fighting.... but why the hell would they? They probably know that it is a hopeless situation withe the miniscule amount of troops that are there "securing" the country. But to send more and send them into the battle zone would mean casualties in a pointless mission. What is the sense in that? They are living up to their NATO committments (sort of) without losing troops. WHy would they want to change that??

 

[iARTthere4iam]

Are we discussing here that other NATO countries are going to take up the heavy lifting (war fighting) in the dangerous areas of Afghanistan? These are the same European counties that allowed one by one the takeover of each of their own countries by Nazi Germany. If Canada chooses to leave after its comitment (2009) then that is fine, but we should realize that we are leaving the Aghans to their fate, be that good or bad. I do not think that other European countries will choose to take up dangerous tasks that are currently being handled by Canada. At the very least the stable areas of Afghanistan must be retained to allow te various necessary security and social groups time to develop. It is sad that a few dozen deaths could derail the possible stability of this country.

 

[Blackleaf]

Other countries could help with the fighting.... but why the hell would they? They probably know that it is a hopeless situation withe the miniscule amount of troops that are there "securing" the country. But to send more and send them into the battle zone would mean casualties in a pointless mission. What is the sense in that? They are living up to their NATO committments (sort of) without losing troops. WHy would they want to change that??

If they are a part of NATO then they MUST send troops there.

And what is the point of sending troops to Afghanistan when the government tells htme to not fight the Taliban? What are they there for? Decoration? That's why France and Germany need to actually start fighting the Taliban and start sending more troops there. Britain has had to keep sending extra troops to Afghanistan because the French and Germans aren't pulling their weight.

 

[Blackleaf]

I do not think that other European countries will choose to take up dangerous tasks that are currently being handled by Canada.

Extra Britain, of course, which has more than three times as many troops in Afghanistan as Canada. And many the Netherlands and Estonia, which often take part in battles against the Taliban alongside the British.

 

[BitWhys]

If they are a part of NATO then they MUST send troops there...

Charter Article 5? That was a stretch in the first place and the last sentence of the second paragraph makes it more than feasible to argue that currently NATO is operating WAY beyond its intended purpose. Maybe somebody stupid out of Ottawa will try to push what you're selling but nobody with the power and a brain who wants to see NATO continue as conceived is going to risk bringing the controversy into the open.

 

[Zzarchov]

Well the option, is everyone just abandon's Nato, and the world goes back the wars its used to.

Russia has been talking about annexing certain former soviet regions again, maybe it would good to show NATO as toothless?

Regardless, how is this different than a peacekeping mission in all but name? The government of the area asked us in to deal with a genocidal xenophobic regime that was raising hell in neighbouring countries as well. Never forget, the Taliban were not Afghanistan. They were an armed group who took regional control through force of arms without popular support.

So we sit there, babysitting troubled regions to prevent wholescale massacre as civilians would be butchered en masse for being 'improper' which is an openly stated goal of the Taliban in their recruiting.

How is that any different than say, Darfour? Would everyone be so opposed if we sent people there?

 

[Blackleaf]

The UN is almost as useless as NATO. If NATO and the UN (the UN especially) weren't created to keep peace in the world then just what were they created for? The UN was created in the years after World War II to prevent another Hitler coming to power. The UN failed when it came to Iraq, leading many people to protest in the street over the "illegality" of the war, when it fact it was only "illegal" just because the UN said it was, even though one of the aims of the UN when it was set up was to prevent genocidal maniacs like Hitler (such as Saddam) from ever operating again.

And the only reason the UN is sending troops to Darfur is because of the overwhelming pressure from Britain, the US and France. If it wasn't for that it also would have done nothing about that region.

It's also failing to act against Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and I think it's only a matter of time before the British pressure the UN about doing something about him.