Vote in House to extend commitment to Afghanistan

[BitWhys]

This sort of feature creep tends to be a sign of a failed operation. The CPC must be counting on the Liberal vote to give carte blanche to the operation. This doesn't sit well with me.

Last Updated Mon, 15 May 2006 21:47:46 EDT
CBC News

The Conservative government plans to introduce what has been described as a "substantial" motion in the House of Commons this week that could add two years to Canada's troop commitment in Afghanistan.

The current mission is scheduled to end in February 2007, but since coming to power, the Conservatives have told Canadians that they believe the military should stay for the long haul.

The issue has been discussed in the backrooms on Parliament Hill for the past few days. But pressure from the Harper government came to a head on Monday afternoon, resulting in an agreement from all parties for a debate on Afghanistan beginning Wednesday at 3 p.m. ET.

The debate will last six hours, and there will be a vote at 9:15 p.m. on extending the mission.

If the vote passes, the mission would be extended to February 2009.

Canada faces pressure

CBC correspondent Paul Hunter reported Monday night that there's "pressure on Canada to make up its mind shortly.

"If it's going to continue in Afghanistan, the coalition would need to know, so that it doesn't have to line up troops from other countries."

In political terms, the motion could also wipe Afghanistan off the table for the Harper government as a problem in the House of Commons.

If he loses the vote, opposition parties could face accusations of being soft on support for Canada's troops. If Harper wins, it effectively removes the issue as something for which the new prime minister could be criticized, since he would have won support in Parliament.

Canada has about 2,300 members of the military stationed in Afghanistan. Most are in Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan, where they are part of a NATO-led mission.

In total, 15 members of the Canadian military have been killed in Afghanistan.

Most recently, four soldiers were killed near Gumbad, north of Kandahar, on April 22, when their vehicle was blown up by a roadside bomb.

If we're so easily replaced we need to respond to pressure maybe we aren't needed there so badly after all. Maybe this is nothing more than an exercise in developing brand recognition on the international scene. To this point I have supported our involvement in Afghanistan. The rushed nature of this latest move out of Ottawa is turning me off it completely.

 

[Jay]

If we're so easily replaced we need to respond to pressure maybe we aren't needed there so badly after all.

I think the coalition would just like to know if we are going to honour our commitments. If we are great, if not the troops will have to be replaced. Obviously there is a need for someone’s troops.....

 

[BitWhys]

They already know we'll honour our commitments although I'll qualify that by saying that shouldn't include the one MacKay put on the back of a napkin during this latest jaunt of his. "Peter promised" isn't much of a rationale.

They don't need to put name tags beside those dots they want to put on the map. They can wait. There's no need to fast-track.

 

[mabudon]

RE: Vote in House to exte

I voted heck no, tho my comments will likely make that obvious

Our "commitment" was to last until what- February??

And there is no indication that we will not "honour" this already-made commitment

I REALLY don't like the way this debate was so hastily erected, especially after Mackays visit last week (which he publically stated was "partially to try to combat sagging support at home" or something to that effect) and the odd position in which it puts the opposition parties is unenviable at least. I suspect that the Government position will be ad-hominem attacks verging on playing the "traitor" card and a bunch of calls for "supporting the troops" (intensely disingenuous coming from the very folks pushing for further commitment to a shadowy "mission" the goals and benefits of which have yet to be explained) and hopefully even some George Bush type "artificial timetable" comments. I expect this because, again, no REAL information is actually available to the "against" side in this debate, and the only way to avoid this fact coming up is to come out swinging. This could lead to "swift boat" campaigns of all types and that would be a sad situation

It would seem that the government believes that we can be given a half-assed dog and pony show in lieu of any sort af actual explanation (oh I know it's supposedly about freeing women from Burqas and building schools and wiping out the Opium trade but NONE of that stuff is even slightly believable) for what we're actually attempting to accomplish with our involvement there (and the FACTS about the pipeline really do seem to have something to do with it, which is why I find it odd that those facts have no place on the "official radar", if ANY official even broached that issue I would be extremely shocked/impressed, maybe the debate will have something for me too)

So this "debate" is pretty much a farce, given that neither side is going to be using any sort of real, hard facts (I think the only angle that could be used at this point would be a cost-based one, the unfair burden on taxpayers with no actual payback, so-to-speak, but even this would lead to calls of "cowards" or "lacking resolve", both ridiculous but I think our fed government has enough pages from certain books to know how to make poppycock like that fly pretty high)

So sadly, this debate is not going to prove anything, other than the fact that Harper and his ministers ahve watched the manipulation going on in certain other countries very closely and taken copious notes

 

[Mogz]

I'm just like to point out that because the coalition wants to know if we're staying or going, that doesn't mean we can be easily replaced. Amazing how civilians can spout such nonsense when they haven't a clue. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a battle group trained, equipped, and ready to deploy to a warzone? If Canada decides to pull out in 2007, then some ot her nation has to fill the vaccum. Someone has to put in a light brigade of troops and equipment. It's no small task. The more warning the better.

If Canada pulls out now, our enemy has won. If we cease our mission in 2007, we'll have accomplished nothing, and the deaths of 15 service members and 1 Canadian diplomat will have been in vain.

oh I know it's supposedly about freeing women from Burqas and building schools and wiping out the Opium trade but NONE of that stuff is even slightly believable

Have you ever been to Afghanistan? Obviously not. I however have, I spent months there, and the schools, medical clinics, houses, that you don't believe are being built, are. We've dug wells for them, provided them with educational material, and even learning aids for the deaf and the blind. I have a buddy currently deployed with Task Force Afghanistan, it's his second tour in that nation, and he's said that in Kabul there are more women walking around now than when we were there together, and schools have sprung up everywhere. In not even a year since i've been back, things have inmproved 50 fold. Yet you sit here on your moral high horse and denounce an operation you clearly don't understand. To me it seems to be more of a case of not wanting to believe we're doing good, than actually seeing evidence we aren't. Disgusting. Vote no all you want, but be advised that declaring we shouldn't have troops in Afghanistan is tantamount to saying you don't care if inocent people live or die, especially when we, as a well trained military, can prevent that. The choice is yours, but as Canadians we're suppose to be a civilized and intelligent society. Yet when it comes to issues such as this, the populace of this nation tends to be some of the most ignorant people on the planet.

 

[Jay]

Some folks are just pissed off we are supporting Americans.

Good. I hope it eats away at them.

 

[BitWhys]

If our troops aren't easily replaced then NATO can hold its horses. "Supporting our troops" also means shielding them from diplomatic largesse and political grandstanding.

Of course the troops are convinced they're doing the right thing. Doubtless for the most part they are but they are in no position to be objective about it. Amazingly, the military has become just as immune to the tenets of Public Choice Theory as the private sector always has been. You might think an overextended military conducting operations in theaters void of clearly defined metrics of success is a good idea. I sure as hell don't.

Let O'Conner answer his own questions first. THEN we can talk. Until then Afghanistan shouldn't be cornering the market on what we should be doing with our military.

 

[sanch]

Of course the troops are convinced they're doing the right thing. Doubtless for the most part they are but they are in no position to be objective about it. Amazingly, the military has become just as immune to the tenets of Public Choice Theory as the private sector always has been. You might think an overextended military conducting operations in theaters void of clearly defined metrics of success is a good idea. I sure as hell don't.

This is simply your opinion. I am sure you think it is correct but it has nothing to do with objectivty.

Canada’s mission in Afghanistan and the accomplishments have been very clearly outlined. There are very defined metrics for success and that many of these have been reached.

http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida.nsf/En/JUD-129153625-S6T

Support for Afghanistan's reconstruction is a high priority for Canada. Our development assistance is part of a coordinated, long-term approach that brings together three arms of Canadian foreign policy: diplomacy, defence, and development, as outlined in Canada’s International Policy Statement.

Reconstruction in Afghanistan is key to creating lasting security in that country, the region, and the world. It is critical that Canada supports Afghan and international reconstruction efforts with long-term investments. Canada's goal is to help Afghanistan stand on its own as an independent, stable, and prosperous nation so that it never again becomes a haven for terrorism.

Before 2001, Canada’s assistance was largely humanitarian aid, typically $10 million per year for basic human needs. Since the Tokyo Conference in January 2002, Afghanistan has been the single largest recipient of Canadian bilateral aid. CIDA's aid program to that country consists of reconstruction and development assistance directed at rural development and governance priorities identified by the Afghan government in its National Development Framework. CIDA supports national programs that assist the Afghan government in reaching people and communities throughout the nation.

Canada has responded to the Afghan government's appeal for long-term development investments. We renewed our commitment to Afghanistan in March 2004 with $250 million in new funds for development assistance between 2005 and 2009, of which $100 million is allocated to fiscal year 2005–2006. In March 2006, a further $40 million was allocated by CIDA. This brought the total to $656.5 million between 2001 and 2009, and maintained the funding level at $100 million for the coming fiscal year.

Afghanistan has made remarkable strides since September 11, 2001, and the fall of the Taliban with:

-a new constitution;
-successful presidential and legislative elections;
-more than one million girls enrolled in school;
-reforms begun in defence, justice, and finance;
-significant progress made in demining; and
-the reintegration of nearly three million Afghan refugees.

Canada has taken a lead role in several initiatives: helping the Afghan government collect and store 10,000 heavy weapons such as artillery, tanks, and rocket launchers; providing savings and microloan services to 140,000 clients, 89 percent of them women; and helping with demining and the destruction of ammunition stockpiles.

Canada has recently fielded a provincial reconstruction team that will help the government stabilize the Kandahar region. The team will focus on building the capacity of the provincial government, with an emphasis on the security sector.

http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida.nsf/En/JOS-426165819-SLH?OpenDocument

Specific results of CIDA-funded initiatives include:

More than 62,000 former combatants have been disarmed and demobilized through the CIDA-funded Afghan New Beginnings Program. Under the program, former soldiers selected reintegration packages to enable them to slowly return to a new civilian life. Training programs included initiatives in agriculture, tailoring, teaching, and demining.


The Microfinance Investment and Support Facility (MISFA), which is one of the Afghan government's top priorities, expanded the existing microfinance network in Afghanistan and provides a range of financial services, including loans for income generation and enterprise development, savings services, and consumer loans to low-income people, particularly women. Canada is the lead donor to this program, one of the largest microfinance schemes in the world, and one which has reached almost 100,000 clients so far, 91 percent of whom are women.


The Government of Afghanistan has asked Canada to be the sole donor for the National Priority Programmes Co-ordination Unit within the Government of Afghanistan. Through this project, CIDA is helping the government of Afghanistan to direct its resources and programs into the provinces where it will have the greatest strategic reach and impact. It will also help the Government of Afghanistan extend the positive reach of the central government to rural Afghanistan.


More than 8,000 villages have been identified for funding through the National Solidarity Program, enabling an estimated 140,000 families to access basic rural infrastructure.


More than 9,000 pieces of heavy weaponry such as artillery, tanks, and rocket launchers have been surrendered and returned to central government control. These weapons are the same that bombarded Kabul and other major cities in Afghanistan for months and killed thousands. This impressive achievement was made possible by very close collaboration between development and political officers from the Canadian Embassy in Kabul, and Canadian military personnel based in Afghanistan.

 

[mabudon]

RE: Vote in House to exte

Mogz- it ain't eating me at all, just a way of looking at things, and that you could throw invective like "Disgusting" into your rant makes it pretty clear that folks with thoughts like mine really piss you off, which is funny to me, since I, like BitWhys, am more concrened about the "no questions asked" way that things seem to be getting handled top-down

And NO, to make it clear, I guess I have never been to Afghanistan and therefore don't have ANY place to have any opinions on anything, thank GOD for all the freedom over here and thanks goodness Harper and Mackay HAVE been there so that they effectively know MUCH better than us poor common folks, and that because of this we don't even have the intelligence to deserve answers to actual legitimate questions

Is that what you are really saying, that since you were there and I (and most of "we" thank goodness) were not, we can't even understand the obvious politicking going on around this issue, and the OBVIOUS secrecy concerning our true goals, which seem somehow to be getting less and less defined, rather than more clear with the passage of time??

I don't have to go ANYWHERE to be able to smell BS when I hear it

 

[BitWhys]

CIDA is setting standards for DND/CF now?

go figure

must be a downsizing thing.

 

[sanch]

Do you not understand how these oversea's missions work? There is always a developmental component that is at least equal in priority to any military involvement.

 

[BitWhys]

speaking of metrics, how high did you have to pile it to achieve that point of view?

 

[Mogz]

1. Our troops aren't easily replaced, hence why NATO wants to know now if we're staying or going, so they can make arrangments to bring in soldiers from another nation.

2. I think people who've been to Afghanistan, regardless of whether they're civy or military, are extremely objective as to the role our nation is taking over there. As for public choice, many of us in the service simply feel that the Canadian public can not offer any valid insight in to Afghanistan. For years people went about their lives pretending they didn't know we were at War. Then, when our nation started taking casualties, everyone woke up and began denouncing an operation they hadn't been paying attention to for 1/2 a decade. Why should we, as an organization, put stock in what the status quo says, when said body is utterly clueless? Yes, we follow our orders, we do our job, but no where in our code of ethics does it say we have to agree that the public is 100% right, especially when we know they're blatantly ignorant. As for metrics of success, how do you propose we lay out a guideline for success? This is spoken like a true civilian. The military is not black and white, nor is warfare. One day you aren't at war, and then amazingly the next everything is fine. Look at Cyprus, we were deployed there for 30 years with no clue as to when the crisis would be resolved; in essence there were no "clearly defined metrics" then. Why not bitching by the public? The Golan Heights, 60 years Canada had troops deployed there, no clearly defined metrics of success. The Former Yugoslavia 11 years, need I say no clearly defined terms of success? A mission is successful when it is successful, and you can't quantify the current level of success you're at. Lastly, as for us being over-extended. Please, we've been over-extended since the 70's and no one cared. We've deployed time and time again to some of the worst places on Earth lacking the equipment and manpower required to be a success, yet our nation kept sending us. I don't have time for people who make it sound like this is the only time we've been short of men and act like they're upset by it.

 

[Mogz]

Re: RE: Vote in House to exte

Mogz- it ain't eating me at all, just a way of looking at things, and that you could throw invective like "Disgusting" into your rant makes it pretty clear that folks with thoughts like mine really piss you off, which is funny to me, since I, like BitWhys, am more concrened about the "no questions asked" way that things seem to be getting handled top-down

And NO, to make it clear, I guess I have never been to Afghanistan and therefore don't have ANY place to have any opinions on anything, thank GOD for all the freedom over here and thanks goodness Harper and Mackay HAVE been there so that they effectively know MUCH better than us poor common folks, and that because of this we don't even have the intelligence to deserve answers to actual legitimate questions

Is that what you are really saying, that since you were there and I (and most of "we" thank goodness) were not, we can't even understand the obvious politicking going on around this issue, and the OBVIOUS secrecy concerning our true goals, which seem somehow to be getting less and less defined, rather than more clear with the passage of time??

I don't have to go ANYWHERE to be able to smell BS when I hear it

You're right, people like you do piss me off. That's not saying you as a person do, but your stance on Afghanistan is typical of what Canadian society has become. It is disgusting to me. To think that a nation that once stood up for the betterment of others, has become a nation of individuals that deem it perfectly fine to pick and choose who we help and why.

You're right, you've never been to Afghanistan. However i've never said you couldn't have an opinion, but I myself at least expect people to offer INFORMED opinions. You said in an earlier thread that it's bullshit we're helping people in Afghanistan. That we're not building schools, that we're not doing any good. I myself, having been there, helped dig wells, handed out aid, beg to differ. So who's right here? Me, having been there? Or you, basising your judgements on...well I don't know what. As I said before, Canadians seem unable to grasp what we're doing in Afghanistan. People like me have layed it out, the news has, hell even the CDS has gotten on TV and outlined what we're doing, yet people still don't seem to get it. As I said above, it's starting to look to me like people don't want to accept that we're not the United States, Afghanistan is not Iraq, and that we're making a big difference in the lives of Afghans. Our soceity seems content assuming what we're doing, and ignoring blatant facts. I don't get it, I really don't.

As for "secret goals". Elaborate me, what are these clandestine goals that Canada has for Afghanistan. You come right out in this thread and say you want answers to the questions you have. The answers are there. I'm just gave you some in this thread. The news shows it every day. What more do you want? Or are you simply going to keep ignoring the answers in hope that the evil plot you think is going on will eventually be revealed? You, and the people like you, are akin to a little child, who asks "why?", is given an answer, and turns around and asks "but why" again, and again. The answers are there, the Government has been forth coming ever since we deployed in 2001. I don't get why the same questions keep revolving around and around and around. If you're not willing to accept what you're being told, then join the Army and do a tour in Afghanistan. That is the only way you're know for certain what we're doing over there. Other than that, i'm out of ideas. Perhaps just get over yourself?

 

[Naci_Sey]

I hesitated between voting 'yes', 'no' and 'undecided'. Obviously, I'm ambivalent about the issue. :?

Why NO?
1) Like many Canadians, I'd prefer that our military revert to its peacekeeping role. We earned considerable international respect as peacekeepers and now that is being lost. As peacekeepers, our military did some fine work. From a pragmatic POV, we are far less likely to have 'enemies' (which one poster in this thread called certain Afghans). I'm not saying that peacekeeping is all we should do, only that it's all our military should do. Canada should be contributing the aid it promised - 0.7% of our GDP. Our current contribution is less than half that.
2) In general, I'm a believer in non-interference, that in the long run it's better for a people to determine their own path, solve their own problems, than for outsiders to assume these roles or suppose they know better.

Why YES?
a) The nature of this particular 'enemy', the Taliban, the hatred the Taliban has for women and girls, and the conditions for women and girls under them.

Why UNDECIDED?
i) Women and girls are under attack in many countries other than Afghanistan. Why are we in that country rather than any other? Is racism at work? Is it that the US wants us in Afghanistan, so we want to show ourselves as the 'good buddy' of Bushlet? That is, why Afghanistan and not, e.g., Zimbabwe or Burma, or any number of other nations in which rape is considered a 'military strategy'?

It's because of these questions that I ultimately answered NO.

 

[BitWhys]

"When a government decides to intervene in a failing state there are a number of considerations that must be taken before committing troops. It must be satisfied that ... there are criteria to measure progress; there is a definition of success; there is an acceptable timeframe for the commitment; and there is a clear exit strategy if the mission is not successful." - Gordon O'Connor - Minister of National Defence

 

[Mogz]

In the broad sense in Afghanistan, we have the definition of success. Route the Taliban and Al-qaeda, train the ANA and ANP so they can defend their own nation. Two simple ultimate goals. Unfortunately you can't offer up a precentage of success for a myriad of reasons i'm sure i don't need to get in to. With regard to an acceptable time frame, sure you can offer one, in fact Gordon O'Connor can come out tomorrow and say, yup, we'll be good to go in 5 years. And in 5 years time we may still require another 5. That's what happened with Cyprus. At first it was 2 years, then 6, then 15, and finally ended at 30. Missions evolve, and I most certainly don't agree with Mr. O'Connor that a concrete timeframe can be laid. Anyone who's in the Army and knows anything about overseas deployments know they change by the day. As for an exit strategy, that's a no brainer. Get the hell out of dodge if shit hits the fan...which isn't happening in Afghanistan right now.

 

[sanch]

Taking an objective perspective entails considering the entirety of an operation. The war on terror, for example, has diplomatic, humanitarian and military components. One can disagree with the military aspect but if one in doing so simply dismisses the humanitarian and diplomatic achievements than one is not being objective.

 

[Mogz]

Like many Canadians, I'd prefer that our military revert to its peacekeeping role. We earned considerable international respect as peacekeepers and now that is being lost. As peacekeepers, our military did some fine work. From a pragmatic POV, we are far less likely to have 'enemies' (which one poster in this thread called certain Afghans). I'm not saying that peacekeeping is all we should do, only that it's all our military should do. Canada should be contributing the aid it promised - 0.7% of our GDP. Our current contribution is less than half that.

I don't get why people assume that our role is peacekeeping. We have never had that role, it's always been something we've done, but no where is our role as an Army defined as peacekeeping. Our role, in actual fact is:

The combat-capable, multipurpose Land Forces are designed for the following duties:

· defending Canadian territory and helping to maintain Canada’s sovereignty by providing land surveillance and combat-ready forces;

· contributing to the collective defence of North America;

· providing armed and unarmed assistance to civil authorities when needed to maintain public order and security or to assist in emergency relief; and

· supporting Canadian interests abroad, a task that may include providing forces for UN, NATO, and other multilateral contingency operations, peacekeeping, and humanitarian assistance.

Our role is complex, and isn't limited to either combat or peacekeeping. yes we earned considerable respect as keepers of the peace, but that respect isn't waining. Canada has also earned considerable respect as combat soldiers, even before Afghanistan. For decades our men and women have exceled in every facet of the military world, not soley peacekeeping. In fact the reason we're so good at peacekeeping, is because we train our men and women well. Our military should not simply be peacekeepers. If that's the case, why would we need weapons, armour, warships, fighters? These items are largely ignored in conventional peacekeeing. You're saying in essence that our military should lose the ability to defend itself AND CANADA from threats. If our Forces aren't capable of defending Canada, then who will do it? The U.S.?

 

[mabudon]

RE: Vote in House to exte

Thanks for your reasoned response (no sarcasm intended, really)
I have no doubt that there are token gesture of good going on there, and I have NO doubt that most of our service men and women are in fact humans who react in very human ways to abject suffering. And I don't necessarily conflate Iraq with Afghanistan, as they are different theatres, but they SURE are in the same region which has become an object of a LOT of attention from other nations, for good or for ill

But I truly do not believe that, for instance, the elected government is one that the average "man-on"the"street" afghani thinks much of, as has been well documented many ARCH criminals are the very membership of that entity. If the Hells Angels became our government I think you would have a pretty decent paralell to the situation there currently, from all I have read at least

As for not being able to defend ourselves, that notion is kinda silly- F'rinstance, I am FULLY capable of defending myself, and would have it no other way, and I have and will beat the crap out of someone who threatens me

BUT unless I am actually threatened, I see no reason to look around for possible threats- I wlll NOT walk into a houise where there's a domestic dispute going on, drive the husband (just for sake of argument) off and replace him with one that I deem a good choice, then devote all of my time and money to making sure that the new husband "takes", maybe actually inproving my offensive and defensive capabilities, especially once it become clear that my "better choice" may have been made with ulterior motives in mind (say my buddy always wanted a house with a pool, and this house has one) and friends of the family (husband AND wife) started mounting a campaign of force against me, then the kids also start gunning for me- so at this point I am gonna have to kill/jail all of the "insurgents" since I'm really only "protecting my home" by doing all of this in the first place, right?? I mean, making a home safe for women and children is a good thing, right??? OH and also I'm gonna restructure a few things, allow other folks from the neighborhood to purchase interests in the house and on the property, which the new husband (my buddy remember) can be in charge of and will be wholly in agreement with- this will no doubt make it pretty dangerous for me AND him and maybe MY house will now become a target, and maybe by this point other neighbors will also join the fray, whether overt or covertly, and of course I'm gonna have to avoid certain places and maybe take some action "pre-emptively" to defend my "interests" (which have now been clearly projected on something to which I honestly have no claim beyond the patently false "trying to defend myself)

So I have to escalate the whole deal up and up and up and THIS is "self defence"???

Not hardly. Self defense and what we're doing in Afghanistan are two TOTALLY different animals and I will likely not be convinced otherwise