Afghanistan

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by ktsnake

1 -- What do you think about this? Do Canadians not have a stake in the War on Terror? Do Canadians feel like Americans should do all of the killing and dieing? I personally feel like we're in this together. Bin Ladin is a serious threat to the Western world, and he must be dealt with. I would find it unconscionable that one of my country's leaders would even suggest that we talk about terms of surrender.

To some extent I think this is a good idea, afterall the provinces that the Canadians were operating in before were relatively stable and peaceful; and most importantly they had the respect and cooperation of the people (ie. they general got excellent intelligence and accurate warning of most attacks). The shift in operational roles was driven more by politics than military need.

I think it comes down to a difference of style and perspective, as well as doctrinal differences. Now the difference in style or perspective is much the same in differece as when it comes to US vs Canadian law enforcement - Canada favours a more preventative approach, as opposed to the punative approach. This coupled with a military doctrine that places less emphasis on firepower and more on "softpower" (hearts & minds as it were) and battlefield control is esentially the way in which Canada approaches most UN missions and past wars since WWI.

This isn't to say that the Canadian Forces won't "throw down", but they don't see it as the first response to go in with guns blazing looking for the enemy and a fight. It's just that in a low-grade war (which insurgencies are classified as) military doctrine calls for the isolation and identification of the primary threat, then a quick and surgical strike to neutralize it, followed by the usual post-battle considerations (treated of the wounded, processing of prisoners, rendering aid to the populace).

Now the major difference in opinion I think between Canadians and Americans, public and military, is that we don't view the "enemy" as a monolithic entity to be defeated only through military force. Yes Bin Laden is a threat that must be dealt with, but that doesn't mean that every combatant in Afghanistan is "evil" or a terrorist that must be killed. For example it is recognized that some are going to be fighting for mercenary reasons, some to protect the drug trade, others because of tribal duty, some for nationalistic reasons, or others because of a vendetta... it's a nebulus enemy that must be confronted with carefully considered tactics for each situation.

Layton isn't saying anything like "surrender", only that in the long term some of the more moderate elements must be included not excluded or eliminated ~ or at the very least given a chance. Now I'm sure someone will say: would Canada have negotiated with the Nazis during WWII? Well the answer to that is actually yes; the Canadian military negotiated temporary ceasefires with the Nazis and even SS in Italy, Normandy, and most spectactularly in the Netherlands - all in an effort to relieve the suffering of the people, allow civilians out of the combat area, and allow for the gathering of wounded (even if it meant the Canadians treated them all). Were some of these Germans and SS unrepentaly evil and certain to fight on no matter what? Yes. However it did allow the "enemy" to see that the Canadians weren't "evil" themselves, and respected them at the very least as humans.

2 -- As to debate, what is this going to accomplish? It can be conducted in Parliament, or it can be conducted in the public square. If the floor of Parliament is anything like the floor of the American House/Senate, then it's all calculated grandstanding with no actual dialogue. If there's any dialogue, it happens behind closed doors and with lots of strings attached. Layton, from the looks of it (and this is just my initial reaction) simply wants a forum where he can make some nice sound bites while having a backdrop which gives him some sort of authority.

What would a full blown debate accomplish? (which yes has grandstanding, but not to the extent of the US House). A full debate would not be the one up political photo op that the 6 hour "debate" that Harper arranged when he first took office. A full debate would last at least a week, and would consist of points and rebutals repeatedly going back and forth (much like in real debating), and in theory would allow any member to make a point, or any member to be challenged on a point. In theory the Governor General or even the Queen could get involved... but really only in theory.

I think the real reason that Layton wants the debate, other than for defining the Canadian role in Afghanistan, is that a debate could be fatal to the Conservatives now. After the Conservatives unilateral military decisions (including the disastorous banning of the media from repatriation ceremonies for slain soldiers, which was eventually withdrawn because of complaints from the public, veterans, the media, and the military), as well as most recently the whole hearted support for Israel's assault on Lebanon... they have lost much of their support from the Bloc Quebecois and the more hawkish Liberals. In fact a debate may lead to a non-confedence vote that could unseat the government, or at least some members of the PM Cabinent (O'Connor the Defense Minister would be in the most danger of being unseated).

As it stands for Layton wanting a back-drop that gives him some authority... well being the leader of a party gives him some, and given that his party has no small amount of support in Canada for its social iniatives, he already has a fair amount of support. It's not like he's just a member of the House (like say Murtha) but rather that he leads a party with 30 or so seats (about 10% of the House)... and given that the Liberals are leaderless right now, some of the more left leaning ones would probibly side with him in a debate bringing him a dozen or so more on side. Finally, he has been spending alot of time in Quebec, and he and his part are much more friendly to Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois than the Conservatives, it is concievable that the Bloc might cross the floor to the opposition in the debate.

The real fun part of a full-on debate is that the party Whip tends to be overwhelmed trying to keep all the party members on message; and it is during the large debates that major changes in party affiliation happen in a Parliamentary system... after all it was a debate in the British Parliament that cause the MP Churchill to switch from the Tories to the Labour party...

I don't know Canadian politics, but to me, we all have a role to play. To even suggest that "moderate" elements of a regime which in the past supported even some of the things the Taliban supported is unconscionable to me. These elements need to be exterminated, not bargained with.

I agree that we all have a role to play in the War on Terror... it's just that the vast majority of Canadians don't want to see (as they percieve) that role being dictated to them from the White House. Many Canadians according to the polls and such believe that the Bush Administration has made the War on Terror (and the world for that matter) more dangerous with their strategies and way of pursuing the terrorists...

Basically Canada (and most Canadians - well except Alberta also known as Busch Lite ) has been committed to a multilateral approach to world issues since WWII. With this in mind it is easy to understand why many are uncomfortable with the US policies in the War on Terror - there was alot of support going in to Afghanistan to "set things right" (heck even before 9/11 Canada was pushing the UN to do something about Afghanistan... but met with resistance from ironically the US). However when the US invaded Iraq, Canadian support for American strategy more or less died... a death only supported by the debacle the Iraq has become. So when it comes to Afghanistan, the Canadian public would much rather see concerns greater than US domestic politics (or Canadian Conservative politics) come into consideration when setting an over all strategy for rebuilding Afghanistan.

Finally I know this may be hard to believe, but ariesrising does represent a sizable segement of Canadian society that is morally disgusted by the US military's conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan; Canadians that are outraged by the seemingly monthly reports of abuses or atrocities, or by the anti-Arab/Muslim retohric you get on US tv or radio (especially radio). So bear in mind that while in the US the news of abuse and such has been realtively weathered, in Canada it has only turned more against US policy.

[Rudey]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

Because I don't really care in the long run.

What does that mean? That you care in the short term to post? That makes no sense.

-Rudey

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Rudey

What does that mean? That you care in the short term to post? That makes no sense.

-Rudey

It means you come in, make a comment that offends and angers those who have friends and relatives in the military, and then leave as if nothing happened.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by ariesrising

You're right, my opinion is stupid and uniformed and I apologize.

I'll agree that it's uninformed, but I never used the word "stupid." You're going to believe what you want, but hopefully you can see why it's so offensive to some on the board.

[RACooper]

Well today may prove to be a boon for Jack Layton and his call for a Canadian withdrawal from the Afghanistan mission... all thanks to G.W. Bush

See the thing is a year ago when the controversy over the possible existance of "black sites" or secret prisons first came to light there was of course some concern here in Canada. There were alligations that CIA flights flew out of Newfoundland on the way to these "secret prisons"; there were concerns that legal rights violations and/or torture may be being used; and finally there were concerns that prisoners taken in Afghanistan by Canadian troops, and turned over to US authorities may be sent to these "secret prisons"... but thankfully the Canadian Parliament was assured by the Ambassador and later by Condi that these secret prisons did not exist, and that all prisoners were assured their legal rights

So as you can understand Bush's little revelation about the secret prisons today can lead to some further challenges to the Harper government's cooperation with US policy, in Afghanistan in regards to prisoner rendition. Further it may lead to more calls for a debate about future of Canadian cooperation in the Afghanistan mission if the United States remains the primary instigator of policy...

[Kevin]

Robert, that's a hell of a lot to respond to. I don't necessarily agree with some of your comparisons and characterizations of American policy. I think you oversimplify things on the U.S. side just as I have been guilty of oversimplifying things on your side of the border (i.e. Layton = coward).

As for the hearts and minds argument versus guns a'blazin', I think that's a gross mischaracterization. A fraternity brother of mine, our faculty advisor is a full colonel in a reserve unit in the U.S. Army. He's been spending about half of each year since the war began in Afghanistan helping to develop civilian infrastructure as well as communications between the local government and the coalition forces in the country.

He's not alone of course. Are you trying to suggest that the U.S. mission is limited to combat operations? I'm sure you know better than that -- and I'm sure you know better than I do what U.S. forces are up to. Let's stay away from the "us good, you bad" comparisons.

I don't know much about Layton -- is he ex-military? I'm suspicious of politicians who think they know better than generals as to how to prosecute a war.

--

As to the debate, how important (or rare) is it for a minority party to have a different opinion? They're the minority party for a reason -- they do not have the country's support. Tell me -- why woudl the majority lend these guys a platform so that they could grandstand for an extended period of time? How would that serve the interests of those in power? Do you think that's realistic? I don't know enough about the Canadian government to answer that, but maybe you can.

--

I'm not sure how we could better organize the overall war effort than through the White House. It seems to me that the vast majority of the overall resources committed to the war come from the U.S. It also seems to me that sovereign nations such as Canada are allowed to decide what they will or will not do regarding their presence in Afghanistan.

Finally, you allude to popular opinion. Aries admits her own opinion is largely based in information she knows to be biased or untrue. I hope that's not representative of Canada as a whole.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by ktsnake

Robert, that's a hell of a lot to respond to. I don't necessarily agree with some of your comparisons and characterizations of American policy. I think you oversimplify things on the U.S. side just as I have been guilty of oversimplifying things on your side of the border (i.e. Layton = coward).

As for the hearts and minds argument versus guns a'blazin', I think that's a gross mischaracterization. A fraternity brother of mine, our faculty advisor is a full colonel in a reserve unit in the U.S. Army. He's been spending about half of each year since the war began in Afghanistan helping to develop civilian infrastructure as well as communications between the local government and the coalition forces in the country.

Heh... when you write about something you know about and/or care about you really can type alot...

The "guns blazin'" quote is more directed to the difference in combat and operation doctrine... the US Military pursues a doctrine of Overwhelming Firepower, while for example the British prefer the War of Manoeuvre, while Canadians pursue a doctrine of Battlefield Control; all of these of course in an effort to minimize friendly casualties while achieving an objective - the subtle differences in strategy and tactics because of military doctrine are made manifest both in political and military attitudes towards combat.

So for instance the Brits with their preference for manoeuvre, invariably seek to gain a strategic or tactical advantage over their enemy by controlling key points and favourable terrain, while denying room to manoeuvre to their enemy. It's a very traditional European approach to war, one developed over centuries of conflict and further refined by the British based on surprisingly naval warfare (controlling key ports, superior training and specialists, and always getting the "wind gauge" so as to control when the attack happens).

Whereas the Canadian military favours the approach of Battlefield Control - which really is a hybrid of the British and American approaches. Essentially the Canadian doctrine calls for the careful preparation and planning before the engaging the enemy. Prior to actual full-blown combat, small Recce teams will probe the enemy positions to gather on the ground intel. Finally when combat ensues, the use of firepower and terrain to partition the enemy forces, and to prevent either retreat or the commitment of enemy reserves. In WWI & WWII this usually meant the use of artillery and airpower to "box the enemy in", while ground troops moved in on the isolated enemy.

Finally the American approach emphasizes the use of superior technology and equipment to bring overwhelming firepower to bear on the enemy. Remember "Shock & Awe"? It's not a new concept... because of the industrial, and now technological, might of America it is possible for them to commit vastly superior firepower against an enemy. Essentially this means that tactically the sheer volume of munitions that thrown at the enemy completely overwhelms their ability to fight back effectively.

Now each of these doctrine has a different final goal in mind... I know it doesn't look that way but I'll try and explain. Under the British approach the enemy is defeated once the enemy's position is untenable - the enemy can neither attack nor defend themselves effectively and the British can "mop-up" at their leisure. The Canadian approach sees victory in the seizing of the objective and holding it, which usually entails the neutralization of the enemy. Finally an American victory is the destruction of the enemy, which then allows them to take the objective.

I hope that this in some way sheds a little light on the different perspectives on how the enemy must be dealt with - for example you, and many US personnel use the term "eliminate" with all the connotations of that term; whereas the British will use the term "defeat", and Canadians "neutralize" - all mean victory over the enemy, but all mean quite different things, and all speak to the military attitudes and doctrines of the three nations... whew... glad to know some of my Military Science classes are useful for something

He's not alone of course. Are you trying to suggest that the U.S. mission is limited to combat operations? I'm sure you know better than that -- and I'm sure you know better than I do what U.S. forces are up to. Let's stay away from the "us good, you bad" comparisons.

I'm not trying to say "us good, you bad", merely that many are unhappy with the American approach - basically they don't want Afghanistan to become another Iraq... the main complaints have to deal with a “too confrontational approach” or an “us and them” attitude when it comes to dealing with the average Afghani.

I don't know much about Layton -- is he ex-military? I'm suspicious of politicians who think they know better than generals as to how to prosecute a war.

No Layton hasn’t served in the military, and the closest he’s come to a military campaign was probably planning a raid on a sorority Anyways he comes from a long line of Canadian politicians… his father was a Conservative Cabinet member, his grandfather resigned from his cabinet post in protest of the Quebec government’s lack of support for the war effort during WWII… and his great-great-uncle was a Father of Confederation (equivalent to a Founding Father). He’s also a got a PhD. in Political Science and is a retired university professor, alumnus of Sigma Chi, and was seen as the most laid-back and “true” of the party leaders in the last election up here (in fact he was voted the most likely to relax with a beer before the election results ~ which he did…)

I think Layton’s beef is that there really isn’t any give and take between the generals and the politicians concerning the Afghan mission – he basically wants an over all strategy reach through honest talks between the military planners and the foreign affairs folks… instead of the reactionary approach Harper has taken (Harper shockingly didn’t expect or prepare for Foreign Policy to play a large role in his government).

--
As to the debate, how important (or rare) is it for a minority party to have a different opinion? They're the minority party for a reason -- they do not have the country's support. Tell me -- why woudl the majority lend these guys a platform so that they could grandstand for an extended period of time? How would that serve the interests of those in power? Do you think that's realistic? I don't know enough about the Canadian government to answer that, but maybe you can.
--

It’s not rare at all for a minority party do have a different opinion, but neither is it usual for this to be all that important – unless public opinion is building behind them. But when you ask why a majority would lend them a platform, you come to the root of the issue: there isn’t a majority party right now – it’s a minority government, the Conservatives have to have one of the other parties support them to hold a majority vote in the House. So simply put if the NDP, the Bloc, and the Liberals put forth a motion for a debate the Conservatives can’t stop them; in fact if the Conservatives try to defeat such a motion it could lead to a non-confidence vote and the dissolution of the current government…

I'm not sure how we could better organize the overall war effort than through the White House. It seems to me that the vast majority of the overall resources committed to the war come from the U.S. It also seems to me that sovereign nations such as Canada are allowed to decide what they will or will not do regarding their presence in Afghanistan.

Finally, you allude to popular opinion. Aries admits her own opinion is largely based in information she knows to be biased or untrue. I hope that's not representative of Canada as a whole.

Here is the root problem, that it is run through the White House… this is a multinational and multilateral effort supported by both the UN and NATO, yet these bodies and the participating nations (all two dozen) aren’t represented or really consulted by the White House or the Pentagon. Sure different countries are given command roles in Afghanistan under the auspices of ISAF (the UN/NATO force there), but the over all policy and planning is purely American… and the Americans exist outside of the ISAF force command structure, but they dictate operations as the head of NATO – wherein many problems arise.

As for public opinion on Afghanistan... its roughly 50/50 support for it still - unlike the Iraq War which was never supported, and was officially condemned by Canada (with approval of this around 70%). Anyways - ariesrising has pre-existing opinions of the military, which may colour her views; and to some extent I can understand them - after all we had the Somolia Affair expose an ugly side to the military here in Canada.

Anyways, the Canadian public is much less accepting of the reports of civlian deaths, abuse, murder, rape, torture, and violations of the Geneva Conventions that have come out of Iraq and Afghanistan. If you consider that the torture and murder of a Somalian teen provoked enough public and political disgust and moral outrage that the Canadian Airborne Regiment was disbanded in disgrace - you might begin to understand why the Canadian public opinion has been turning against the US Military...

[Rudey]

Just shoot them instead of taking prisoners and you wouldn't have this PR problem.

-Rudey

[RACooper]

Well NATO's calling for more troops, but the member countires are citing prior commitments and an unwillingness to place troops under a divided command...

As for Canada, well they aren't increasing the number of troops, but they are deploying the Van Doos well ahead of schedule while keeping the RCR (the regiment in country) on the normal rotational cycle - what this means is that for a breief 2 month period or so, Canadian infantry forces will double up so that ISAF gains some more operational mobility to launch a renewed offensive...

Of course the fighting might escalate now that Pakistan has signed a cease-fire with the Taliban...

[RACooper]

Today's latest sucide attack which claimed 4 more lives is sure to spark more debate on the mission in the newly re-conviened Parliament...

The sobering statistic that a Canadian is 6 times more likely to die due to enemy contact than a US solider in Iraq isn't going to help either.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by RACooper

The sobering statistic that a Canadian is 6 times more likely to die due to enemy contact than a US solider in Iraq isn't going to help either.

How Is that true? I'm pretty sure a lot more Americans have lost their lives in Iraq than Canadians have in Afghanistan.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

How Is that true? I'm pretty sure a lot more Americans have lost their lives in Iraq than Canadians have in Afghanistan.

Not total, but statistical average based on total deployed troops and total casualties... based on statistics Canada's casualty rate in Afghanistan is 6 times that of the US's in Iraq.

Link to actual study:
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/doc...das_Fallen.pdf